minimum contacts test in New York

1984In Shaffer (supra), the court held that the exercise of jurisdiction by a State court is subject to the minimum contacts test of International Shoe Co. v Washington ( 326 US 310 , supra).

1983(Platto and Snyder, Nationwide Class Actions in New York State Courts?, NYLJ, April 11, 1983, p 1, col 2.) Turning now to the question of whether minimum contacts are required as to nonresident class members, in Shaffer v Heitner ( 433 US 186, 212 , supra), the court stated that the minimum contacts test governs all assertions of State court jurisdiction.

2012Co., 35 AD3d at 168-169 ).

2012Co., 35 AD3d at 168-169 ).

2024While electronic communications, telephone calls or letters, in and of themselves, are generally not enough to establish jurisdiction (see Liberatore v Calvino, 293 AD2d 217, 220 [1st Dept 2002]), they may be sufficient if used by the defendant deliberately to project itself into business transactions occurring within New York State (see Ehrlich- Bober & Co. v Univ. of Houston, 49 NY2d 574 [1980]; Parke-Bernet Galleries, Inc. v Franklyn, 26 NY2d 13 [1970]).

2005While electronic communications, telephone calls or letters, in and of themselves, are generally not enough to establish jurisdiction (see Liberatore v Calvino, 293 AD2d 217, 220 [2002]; Granat v Bochner, 268 AD2d 365 [2000]), they may be sufficient if used by the defendant deliberately to project itself into business transactions occurring within New York State (see Ehrlich-Bober & Co. v University of Houston, 49 NY2d 574 [1980]; Parke-Bernet Galleries v Franklyn, 26 NY2d 13 [1970]; Courtroom Tel.

2024While electronic communications, telephone calls or letters, in and of themselves, are generally not enough to establish jurisdiction (see Liberatore v Calvino, 293 AD2d 217, 220 [1st Dept 2002]), they may be sufficient if used by the defendant deliberately to project itself into business transactions occurring within New York State (see Ehrlich- Bober & Co. v Univ. of Houston, 49 NY2d 574 [1980]; Parke-Bernet Galleries, Inc. v Franklyn, 26 NY2d 13 [1970]).

2005While electronic communications, telephone calls or letters, in and of themselves, are generally not enough to establish jurisdiction (see Liberatore v Calvino, 293 AD2d 217, 220 [2002]; Granat v Bochner, 268 AD2d 365 [2000]), they may be sufficient if used by the defendant deliberately to project itself into business transactions occurring within New York State (see Ehrlich-Bober & Co. v University of Houston, 49 NY2d 574 [1980]; Parke-Bernet Galleries v Franklyn, 26 NY2d 13 [1970]; Courtroom Tel.

2013Second, under a minimum contacts analysis, there is no per se temporal limitation that prohibits the consideration of contacts during the time surrounding the claimed injury (see Harlow v Children’s Hosp., 432 F3d 50, 61 [1st Cir 2005]; Henderson v Laser Spine Inst., 815 F Supp 2d at 370 ).

2013Second, under a minimum contacts analysis, there is no per se temporal limitation that prohibits the consideration of contacts during the time surrounding the claimed injury (see Harlow v Children’s Hosp., 432 F3d 50, 61 [1st Cir 2005]; Henderson v Laser Spine Inst., 815 F Supp 2d at 370 ).

1999It is well settled that “due process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” (International Shoe Co. v Washington, 326 US 310, 316 , quoting Milliken v Meyer, 311 US 457, 463 .) Further, unilateral activity by the party claiming a relationship will not satisfy the minimum contacts requirement (see, Hanson v Denckla, 357 US 235 ).

1992In International Shoe Co. v Washington ( 326 US 310 ), the Supreme Court of the United States set forth the standard by which the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction is measured: "[D]ue process requires only that in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he have certain minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’ ” (Supra, at 316, quoting Milliken v Meyer, 311 US 457, 463 .) Unilateral activity by the party claiming a relationship

1996The minimum contacts standard is designed to protect a defendant from having to litigate in a distant or inconvenient forum with which he has established no meaningful contacts, ties, or relations (see, Burger King Corp. v Rudzewicz, 471 US 462, 471-472 ), and to prevent the individual States from overreaching the judicial limits appropriate to "their status as coequal sovereigns” (World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v Woodson, 444 US 286, 292 ).

1980Arguments as to whether Shaffer would be given a broader interpretation and effect in subse quent cases (see, e.g., Smit, The Importance of Shaffer v. Heitner: Seminal or Minimal?, 45 Brooklyn L Rev 519) have been answered recently when the Supreme Court indicated that Shaffer would serve to deprive State courts of jurisdiction in areas thought by courts and commentators to be outside the scope of Shaffer (cf. Rush v Savchuk, 444 US 320 , and World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v Woodson, 444 US 286 , with O’Connor v Lee-Hy Paving Corp., 579 F2d 194; and see Diamond, Seider v Roth — Alive and Well, 45

2024In order to satisfy the minimum contacts requirement, it is essential that there be some act by which defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in New York, thus invoking the benefit and protection of its laws (Deutsche Bank, 21 AD3d at 94 ).

2023Co. , 95 NY2d at 216 ).

2021Thus, the record reflects a sufficiently close relationship among defendants to make the application of the clause foreseeable, rendering a separate minimum-contacts analysis unnecessary ( see Highland Crusader Offshore Partners , 184 AD3d at 121 ).

2020It is a general principle that only the parties to a contract are bound by its terms ( see Tate & Lyle Ingredients Ams., Inc. v Whitefox Tech, USA, Inc. , 98 AD3d 401 [1st Dept 2012]).

2005While electronic communications, telephone calls or letters, in and of themselves, are generally not enough to establish jurisdiction (see Liberatore v Calvino, 293 AD2d 217, 220 [2002]; Granat v Bochner, 268 AD2d 365 [2000]), they may be sufficient if used by the defendant deliberately to project itself into business transactions occurring within New York State (see Ehrlich-Bober & Co. v University of Houston, 49 NY2d 574 [1980]; Parke-Bernet Galleries v Franklyn, 26 NY2d 13 [1970]; Courtroom Tel.

1995Ct., 104 Nev 544, 546, 762 P2d 886, 887 ; Oxmans’ Erwin Meat Co. v Blacketer, 86 Wis 2d 683, 687 , 273 NW2d 285, 287 ).

1995Ct., 104 Nev 544, 546, 762 P2d 886, 887 ; Oxmans’ Erwin Meat Co. v Blacketer, 86 Wis 2d 683, 687 , 273 NW2d 285, 287 ).

1995Ct., 104 Nev 544, 546, 762 P2d 886, 887 ; Oxmans’ Erwin Meat Co. v Blacketer, 86 Wis 2d 683, 687 , 273 NW2d 285, 287 ).

1987(Supra; Molybdenum Corp. v Superior Ct., 17 Ariz App 354, 498 P2d 166 .) Thus, the issue before this court is whether Volpi & Son has caused an event to occur in Arizona from which China Express’ cause of action arose, and whether Arizona’s assertion of in personam jurisdiction can be sustained under the minimum contacts analysis developed by the United States Supreme Court.

1987(Phillips v Anchor Hocking Glass Corp., 100 Ariz 251, 413 P2d 732 , supra; see, Meyers v Hamilton Corp., 143 Ariz 249, 693 P2d 904 , supra.) The Arizona rule is that minimum contacts with the forum State are acceptable as long as traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice will not be offended by assertion of long-arm jurisdiction.

1983This standard of minimum contacts is one of reasonableness, with the facts of each case to be weighed individually to determine whether the requisite circumstances exist (Kulko v California Superior Ct., 436 US 84 ). “[Wjhile very little purposeful activity within a state is necessary to satisfy the minimum contacts requirement, we have, nevertheless, unequivocally required some activity by the defendant before permitting the exercise of in personam jurisdiction * * * the jurisdictional touchstone being the presence of sufficient in-state business activity to indicate the pur poseful enjoyment

1981It phrased the question before it as follows (pp 459-460): “the question presented is not * * * whether the Legislature could constitutionally have enacted legislation expanding the jurisdiction of our courts to the extent determined by the Appellate Division or whether, indeed, the Legislature should have done so * * * but whether the Legislature did, in fact, do so.” (See, also, McGowan v Smith, 52 NY2d 268, 274 ; Simonson v International Bank, 14 NY2d 281, 287-288 .) We perceive no reason to read CPLR 301 any more expansively.