175 A.D.3d 1048
N.Y. App. Div.2019Background
- Plaintiff Jody C. Best, individually and as administrator of Donald Best's estate, sued for medical malpractice and wrongful death based on care provided at Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital in Pennsylvania by four physician defendants.
- Defendants include the Pennsylvania hospital (Guthrie Robert Packer Hospital) and four individual physicians; suit was brought in New York.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 301 and 302; Supreme Court granted the motion as to all defendants.
- Plaintiff argued the hospital consented to New York jurisdiction by registering as a foreign corporation and that individual doctors consented by obtaining New York medical licenses; plaintiff also argued defendants waived jurisdictional objections by having corporate counsel accept service.
- Record showed the hospital advertises to New Yorkers, has relationships with New York providers/insurers and a New York–based Guthrie Medical Group owner, and derives substantial revenue from New York residents.
- There was no evidence that individual physicians had sufficient New York contacts or were domiciled in New York.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New York courts have general jurisdiction over the hospital (CPLR 301) | Hospital’s New York registration and business ties make it "at home" in NY | Hospital is a Pennsylvania entity; registration alone does not confer general jurisdiction | Court: Plaintiff made a sufficient start to warrant jurisdictional discovery as to the hospital; dismissal reversed as to hospital (no general jurisdiction decision on merits) |
| Whether New York courts have long-arm jurisdiction over the hospital (CPLR 302(a)(1)) | Hospital’s advertising, relationships with NY providers/insurers, revenue from NY residents establish purposeful activities and substantial relationship to claim | Contacts are insufficient to establish long-arm jurisdiction | Court: Plaintiff made a sufficient start that facts may exist to exercise long-arm jurisdiction; jurisdictional discovery ordered for hospital |
| Whether individual physicians are subject to New York jurisdiction (general or long-arm) | Licensing in NY and any contacts with NY subjects doctors to jurisdiction | Physicians are domiciled elsewhere and lack contacts sufficiently related to the claim | Court: No nonfrivolous showing of jurisdiction over individual defendants; summary judgment dismissal as to individual doctors affirmed |
| Whether defendants waived jurisdictional objections by acceptance of service by corporate counsel | Acceptance of service constituted waiver/appearance | Acceptance was a courtesy only and did not constitute formal appearance or waiver | Court: No waiver; counsel’s acceptance of service did not bar jurisdictional objection |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general jurisdiction requires being "essentially at home")
- Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc. v. Montana Board of Investments, 7 N.Y.3d 65 (long-arm requires purposeful activity and a substantial relationship between activity and claim)
- Laufer v. Ostrow, 55 N.Y.2d 305 (individual nonresident defendants and domicile analysis for general jurisdiction)
- Williams v. Beemiller, Inc., 159 A.D.3d 148 (summary judgment burden and personal jurisdiction analysis)
- Robins v. Procure Treatment Centers, Inc., 157 A.D.3d 606 (jurisdictional discovery where plaintiff makes a sufficient start)
- Aybar v. Aybar, 169 A.D.3d 137 (foreign corporation registration does not alone consent to jurisdiction)
- Glazer v. Socata, S.A.S., 170 A.D.3d 1685 (standard for when jurisdictional discovery is not warranted)