Bryant v. Finnish National Airline
260 N.Y.S.2d 625, 208 N.E.2d 439, 15 N.Y.2d 426 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A foreign corporation is considered to be "doing business" and is subject to personal jurisdiction in New York for any cause of action if its in-state activities are continuous, systematic, and substantial, even if those activities are merely ancillary to its primary business which occurs entirely outside the state.
Facts:
- Plaintiff Bryant, a New York resident and employee of Trans World Airlines, was at an airport in Paris, France.
- An aircraft owned by defendant Finnish National Airline (Finnair), a Finnish corporation, produced an excessive blast of air while moving across the airfield.
- The air blast blew a baggage cart into Bryant, causing her to suffer injuries.
- Finnair's principal offices are in Helsinki, Finland, and it does not operate any flights that begin or end in the United States.
- Finnair leases a small office in New York City staffed with three full-time and four part-time employees.
- The New York office's functions include public relations, publicity, and receiving reservation requests from travel agents and other airlines, which it then transmits to its European office for confirmation.
- The New York office does not have the authority to sell tickets or bind the corporation in contracts.
- Finnair maintains a New York bank account to pay for the office's rent, employee salaries, and other operating expenses.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Bryant sued defendant Finnish National Airline in a New York trial court (Special Term) to recover for personal injuries.
- The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction over it as a foreign corporation.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion, finding that the airline was "doing business" in New York.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the defendant's activities did not constitute "doing business" and granted the motion to dismiss.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, then appealed that reversal to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a foreign airline "do business" in New York, and is it therefore subject to personal jurisdiction for a tort committed abroad, when its in-state activities are limited to maintaining an office for publicity, public relations, and transmitting reservation requests, even though it operates no flights in the United States and does not sell tickets directly from that office?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Desmond
Yes, the foreign airline does "do business" in New York and is subject to personal jurisdiction. The test for determining whether a foreign corporation is "doing business" in the state is a simple and pragmatic one. Although Finnair does not operate aircraft in New York or sell tickets from its New York office, its activities within the state are continuous and systematic, warranting a finding of its presence. The combination of leasing a permanent office, employing several people, maintaining a local bank account, conducting public relations and publicity work, and helping to generate business by transmitting reservation requests is sufficient to establish that Finnair is "here." This aggregate of activities, carried on with a fair measure of continuity and regularity, satisfies the jurisdictional requirement, distinguishing this case from those involving mere solicitation or the use of an independent contractor.
Analysis:
This decision adopts a pragmatic and holistic approach to the "doing business" standard for general personal jurisdiction in New York. It clarifies that a foreign corporation need not perform its primary business functions within the state to be subject to jurisdiction. Instead, a continuous and systematic course of conduct that includes promotional and business-generating activities from a permanent in-state location is sufficient. This lowers the jurisdictional threshold, making it easier for plaintiffs to sue foreign corporations in New York for causes of action arising anywhere in the world, so long as the corporation maintains a substantial and continuous presence in the state.
