Practice point: Pursuant to CPLR 301, the corporation is amenable to suit in New York courts if it has engaged in such a continuous and systematic course of doing business here that a finding of its presence in New York is warranted. The exercise of jurisdiction over a foreign corporation on the basis of state law must comport with the due process requirement that the corporation's affiliations with New York are so constant and pervasive as to render it essentially at home here.
CPLR 302(a)(1) grants New York courts jurisdiction over nondomiciliaries when the action arises out of the nondomiciliaries' transaction of any business in New York. In deciding jurisdiction under the statute, the court will determine (1) whether the defendant transacted business in New York and, if so, (2) whether the cause of action asserted arose from that transaction. In order to satisfy the second prong, there must be an articulable nexus or a substantial relationship between the defendant's New York activity and the alleged cause of action.
Case: Fernandez v. DaimlerChrysler, A.G., NY Slip Op 06679 (2d Dep't October 12, 2016)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: Service of a notice of claim by regular mail.
