37 N.Y.3d 274
NY2021Background
- July 2012: New York resident Jose Aybar Jr. drove a Ford Explorer in Virginia; vehicle allegedly suffered tire failure, causing deaths and injuries; plaintiffs (survivors and estates) sued Ford and Goodyear in New York.
- Ford and Goodyear are incorporated and have principal places of business outside New York but were registered with the New York Secretary of State as foreign corporations and had designated in‑state agents for service under the Business Corporation Law (BCL).
- Ford and Goodyear moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (CPLR 3211(a)(8)); plaintiffs argued registration/agent appointment constitutes consent to general jurisdiction in New York.
- Trial court denied the motions relying on Bagdon; Appellate Division reversed, concluding registration does not constitute consent to general jurisdiction in light of modern Supreme Court jurisprudence; this Court granted leave and affirmed the Appellate Division.
- Court of Appeals held (1) BCL registration and designation of an in‑state agent constitutes consent to accept service of process in New York, but (2) it does not amount to consent to general (all‑purpose) jurisdiction in New York courts; plaintiffs had not preserved or pursued specific‑jurisdiction or "at home" arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a foreign corporation’s registration to do business in NY and designation of an in‑state agent constitutes consent to general jurisdiction in NY courts | Registration + agent designation constitutes consent to general jurisdiction (so Ford / Goodyear are haled into NY courts for any claim) | Registration/agent designation only consents to in‑state service (notice); it does not equate to submission to general jurisdiction under NY law or modern due‑process limits | Registration/agent designation = consent to service only; it does not constitute consent to general jurisdiction; dismissal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Bagdon v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., 217 N.Y. 432 (N.Y. 1916) (construed historically as consenting to in‑state service; Court explains Bagdon did not itself hold registration = consent to general jurisdiction)
- Tauza v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N.Y. 259 (N.Y. 1917) (reaffirmed Bagdon principle that in‑state service on a corporation present in NY could confer jurisdiction under then‑controlling law)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (U.S. 1945) (shifted analysis from strict territorial presence to "minimum contacts"—foundation for modern specific/general jurisdiction distinctions)
- Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (U.S. 2011) (limits exercise of general jurisdiction to forums where defendant is "at home")
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (U.S. 2014) (further narrowed general jurisdiction; place of incorporation and principal place of business are paradigmatic bases)
- Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 308 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1939) (recognizes validity of jurisdiction based on statutory agent designation/consent to be sued)