Pincione v. DAlfonso
506 F. App'x 22
2d Cir.2012Background
- Pincione appeals from a district court judgment dismissing his amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over multiple defendants under RICO §1965(a) and NY CPLR §302.
- The district court applied the same reasoning to non-moving defendants and dismissed them as well.
- Pincione alleged defendants had agents or transacted affairs in New York, aiming to establish jurisdiction.
- RICO venue under §1965(a) requires an initial defendant to reside, have an agent, or transact affairs in the district; none did in New York.
- CPLR §302(a)(1) requires a defendant to transact business in New York with purposeful availment; contacts here were mostly communications for an Italian deal, not a New York transaction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RICO §1965(a) supports New York jurisdiction. | Pincione asserts defendants had an agent or transacted affairs in NY. | Defendants lack NY residency/agent and do not transact NY affairs. | No; §1965(a) does not confer jurisdiction here. |
| Whether §302(a)(1) supports jurisdiction. | Contacts with NY show purposeful availment. | Contacts were incidental to an Italian deal; not NY transactions. | No; insufficient to show transaction of business in NY. |
| Whether §302(a)(2) supports jurisdiction. | Torts occurred in New York. | Requires NY presence for wrongful act; not satisfied by pleadings. | No; Feathers/Bensusan interpretation remains controlling. |
| Whether §302(a)(3)(ii) supports jurisdiction. | Injury occurred in NY and defendants derive substantial interstate revenue. | No substantial interstate revenue; injury location alone insufficient. | No; revenues stem from local Italian activities; jurisdiction not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King, 126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 1997) (interpretation of § 302(a)(2) injury location)
- Feathers v. McLucas, 15 N.Y.2d 443 (N.Y. 1965) (states that § 302(a)(2) requires NY-tort presence; adherence to Feathers)
- Sunward Elecs., Inc. v. McDonald, 362 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2004) (considered totality of NY contacts for §302(a)(1) transacting business)
- Ehrenfeld v. Bin Mahfouz, 9 N.Y.3d 501 (N.Y. 2007) (NY approach to analyzing NY-based activity and availment)
- Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez, 171 F.3d 779 (2d Cir. 1999) (discusses where the injury occurs for jurisdictional purposes)
- PT United Can Co. Ltd. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., 138 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 1998) (limits RICO venue to district where defendant resides/has agent/transacts affairs)
- Sybron Corp. v. Wetzel, 46 N.Y.2d 197 (NY 1978) (situs of financial consequences in NY for commercial torts)
- Whitaker v. Am. Telecasting, Inc., 261 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2001) (an injury location analysis for § 302(a)(3)(ii))