Bullock v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc.
1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3213, 162 N.Y.S.2d 69, 7 Misc. 2d 108 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A foreign corporation consents to personal jurisdiction in a state's courts by designating an in-state agent for service of process, even if pursuant to a federal statute. A court will not dismiss a tort action brought by a state resident on the grounds of forum non conveniens, even if the tort occurred outside the state.
Facts:
- The defendant is a corporation incorporated and based in Florida.
- The defendant does not have any officers, directors, or regular agents residing or stationed within New York State.
- Pursuant to the federal Motor Carrier Act, the defendant designated an individual, Mildred Straub, as its agent for service of process within New York.
- The plaintiff was a resident of New York State at the time the lawsuit was commenced.
- The underlying legal dispute is a tort action that arose outside the State of New York.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, a New York resident, filed a tort action against Defendant, a Florida corporation, in a New York trial court.
- Plaintiff served the summons on Mildred Straub, the agent designated by Defendant for service of process in New York under the federal Motor Carrier Act.
- Defendant filed a motion in the trial court to vacate and set aside the service of summons, arguing a lack of personal jurisdiction.
- Alternatively, Defendant argued that the court should decline to hear the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
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 New York court have personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation that designated an in-state agent for service of process under federal law, and should the court exercise that jurisdiction over a foreign tort claim when the plaintiff is a resident of New York?
Opinions:
Majority - A. David Benjamin, J.
Yes, the court has and should exercise jurisdiction. A foreign corporation's designation of an in-state agent for service of process, even under a federal act, constitutes consent to personal jurisdiction in that state's courts. Citing Esperti v. Cardinale Trucking Corp., the court reasoned that jurisdiction over a person can be acquired by consent, and designating an agent is an act of consent. Furthermore, the doctrine of forum non conveniens does not apply because New York courts are bound to hear a foreign tort action when the plaintiff is a resident of the state, as established in de la Bouillerie v. de Vienne. Given the plaintiff's residency and other special circumstances, the court must exercise its discretion to retain jurisdiction in the interest of justice.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that consent is a standalone basis for establishing personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, separate from minimum contacts analysis or specific state service statutes. It significantly limits the application of the forum non conveniens doctrine in New York when a resident plaintiff is involved, effectively creating a strong presumption that a resident's choice of their home forum will be honored. This provides a procedural advantage to New York residents suing out-of-state entities, ensuring them access to local courts for torts that occur elsewhere.
