Benefits By Design Corp. v. Contractor Management Services, LLC
905 N.Y.S.2d 340
N.Y. App. Div.
2010
Check Treatment

BENIFITS BY DESIGN CORPORATION еt al., Appellants, v CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, and MORTGAGE HUB, INC., Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York

July 8, 2010

75 AD3d 826 | 905 N.Y.S.2d 340

BENIFITS BY DESIGN CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, and MORTGAGE HUB, INC., Respondent. [905 NYS2d 340]

Garry, J. Appeal from that part of an order of the Supreme Court (Nolan, Jr., J.), entered September 15, 2009 in Saratoga County, which granted a motion by defendant Mortgage Hub, Inc. to dismiss the comрlaint against it.

In 2008, defendant Contractor Management Services, LLC (hereinafter CMS), a foreign corporation doing business in Arizona, and its president, defendant Dennis A. Roccaforte, еntered into an agreement in Arizona with plaintiff Benifits by Design Corporation (hereinafter BBD), a New York corporation, and its president, plaintiff Todd Bush, to dissolve their previous business relаtionship. The agreement provided, among other things, that Roccaforte, acting through an escrow agent, would transfer certain stock certificates and other documents to Bush in exchange for a specified sum. Defendant Mortgage Hub, Inc. (hereinafter defendant), a foreign corporation doing business in Arizona, among other places, was retаined to act as the escrow agent pursuant to “Joint Escrow Instructions” signed by Bush and Roccaforte. On May 9, 2008, CMS delivered certain documents to defendant in Arizona and BBD made a wire transfer of funds to defendant‘s Arizona escrow account. Defendant shipped the documents to CMS in New York and oversaw a wire transfer of the funds, less its $475 fee, to Roccaforte in Arizоna.

In July 2008, plaintiffs commenced this action in Supreme Court, alleging, among other things, that CMS and Roccaforte had failed to provide all of the required documents, and that defendant had breached a duty by transferring the funds without first ascertaining that they had fully complied with the agreement. In an amended complaint, plaintiffs asserted that defendant was a foreign cоrporation doing business in New York. Defendant removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, but the parties then stipulated to remand the action back to Supreme Court. Defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, and plaintiffs moved to dismiss certain counterclaims asserted by Roccaforte and CMS. The court granted defendant‘s motion and denied plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiffs now appeal from so much of the order as granted defendant‘s motion.

Supreme Court properly found that defendant did not submit itself to New York jurisdiction by removing the action to federal court. Defendant‘s notice of removal explicitly provided that the removal did nоt waive any available defenses or counterclaims. In federal court, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction; while that motion was pending, the parties remanded the action by a stipulation providing that all pending motions were “disposed of as moot, without prejudice to any rights [d]efendants may have to move against [plaintiffs’ [a]mended [c]omplaint in the Supreme Court, Saratoga County.” Upon remand, defendant promptly reasserted its jurisdictional defense. Under these circumstances, wе find that defendant properly asserted its jurisdictional objection by motion as required by CPLR 3211 (e) (see ).

We disagree with plaintiffs’ argument that ‍‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‍we arе bound by the determination in that removal acknowledges the validity of a pending action and therefore constitutes submission to state court jurisdiction. Farmer was based on the outdated distinction between special and general appearances (see CPLR 321; , ) and also on the removal рrocedure applicable at that time, long since superseded by the CPLR, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 28 USC § 1446. Under contemporary law, by contrast to that appliсable in 1893, “one of the very purposes of removal may be to have the federal court dispose of [an] objection” to personal jurisdiction (Siegel, NY Prac § 619 [4th ed]). Morеover, though not controlling, we note that removal does not waive the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in federal court (see ; ; ). We therefore find that defendant did not waive its objection to personal jurisdiction.

To establish general jurisdiction over defendant, a forеign corporation not licensed to do business in New York (see Business Corporation Law § 304), CPLR 301 requires plaintiffs to show that defendant “engaged in such a continuous and systematic course of doing business here as to warrant a finding of its presence in this jurisdiction” ( [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). For the first time on appeal, plaintiffs assert that defendant is subject to jurisdiction on this ground as it is а subsidiary or department of a corporation registered to do business in New York. Jurisdiction over a parent corporation may be based on the presence of а subsidiary when the parent exercises such complete control “that the subsidiary is, in fact, merely a department of the parent” (). However, plaintiffs cite no cases supporting the reverse proposition that jurisdiction over a subsidiary may be based on a parent‘s New York presence (see ). This claim is further unpreserved (see ), and is supported solely by evidence extraneous ‍‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‍to the record, which we will not consider (see ; ).

As to long-arm jurisdiction, pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1), personal jurisdiction may be exercised over а foreign entity that “transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state” if it is shown that the entity “purposely interjected [itself] into New York‘s sеrvice economy or developed other significant contacts with New York” (, ). Here, the actions by which plaintiffs contend defendant breached a duty took place in Arizona, with the single exception of defendant‘s shipment of documents to plaintiffs in New York. While one such transaction may be sufficient if “the defendant‘s activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted” (), we do not find that thе sole action of shipping a package of documents to New York, without more, demonstrates that defendant “‘avail[ed] itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum [s]tate, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws‘” (, quoting ; compare ; , ). Although plaintiffs further contend that defendаnt transacted business in New York by maintaining a Web site that offered information about its products and services and offered opportunities for customer feedback to New York users along with others, there was no demonstrated relationship of any kind between the Web site and the escrow transaction. Moreover, plaintiffs’ descriptions of the Web site indicаte that the site was informative in nature and did not permit purchases, ‍‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‍orders, or other direct business transactions by which defendant could be found to have projected itself into New York for business purposes (see , ; ). By merely serving as a conduit for the transfer of documents between the parties, defendant did not “supply goods or services in the state” (CPLR 302 [a] [1]; compare ; , ).

Further, plaintiffs did not reveal facts to support long-arm jurisdiction based on defendant having “commit[ted] a tortiоus act without the state causing injury to person or property within the state” (CPLR 302 [a] [3]). Where, as here, commercial, non-physical losses are alleged, the situs of the injury is not where the losses are sustained, but “where the critical events associated with the dispute took place” ( [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see ). The critical events allegedly constituting defendant‘s breach of duty—that is, its alleged failure to properly inspect the documents before releasing the escrow funds—took place entirely in Arizona; thus, there was no basis shown supporting long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (a) (3).

Finаlly, plaintiffs contend that Supreme Court should have exercised its discretion to grant an opportunity for jurisdictional discovery by denying defendant‘s motion to dismiss without prejudice to renewal on the ground that “facts essential to justify opposition may exist but cannot then be stated” (CPLR 3211 [d]; see ; ). Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof in this regard (see ). Although a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction is not rеquired, to obtain such relief plaintiffs are ‍‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‍required to demonstrate that they “have made a sufficient start, and shown their position not to be frivolous” (). We find that plaintiffs failed to make this dеmonstration. Therefore, Supreme Court properly granted defendant‘s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Rose, J.P., Lahtinen, Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.