Johnson v. Ward
4 N.Y.3d 516, 797 N.Y.S.2d 33, 829 N.E.2d 1201 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1) over a nondomiciliary for a tort claim requires a substantial nexus between the cause of action and the defendant's in-state transactions, beyond mere possession of a state driver's license or vehicle registration when the tort occurred out-of-state.
Facts:
- On October 12, 1997, Roger Johnson and Monique White's vehicle was struck from behind by a car driven by Daniel Ward in New Jersey.
- At the time of the accident, Roger Johnson, Monique White, and Daniel Ward were all New York residents.
- At the time of the accident, Daniel Ward possessed a New York driver’s license.
- At the time of the accident, Daniel Ward had registered his vehicle in New York.
- In December 1997, Daniel Ward moved to New Jersey.
- In 1998, Daniel Ward surrendered his New York license in favor of a New Jersey license.
Procedural Posture:
- In October 2000, Roger Johnson and Monique White commenced a negligence action against Daniel Ward in Supreme Court, New York County.
- Daniel Ward moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8).
- The Supreme Court granted Daniel Ward's motion and dismissed the complaint, finding no basis for long-arm jurisdiction.
- Upon reargument, the Supreme Court adhered to its original determination.
- Roger Johnson and Monique White (appellants) appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department, with Daniel Ward as the appellee.
- The Appellate Division, with one Justice dissenting, reversed the Supreme Court's order and reinstated the complaint.
- The Appellate Division granted leave to the Court of Appeals, certifying the following question: “Was the order of this Court, which reversed the order of the Supreme Court, properly made?” (Appellants: Daniel Ward; Appellees: Roger Johnson and Monique White).
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 long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1) over a nonresident defendant whose alleged negligence occurred out-of-state, merely because the defendant possessed a New York driver's license and vehicle registration at the time of the out-of-state accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Graffeo, J.
No, a New York court does not have long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1) in this situation because there is an insufficient nexus between the plaintiffs' personal injury action and any New York transactions. The court noted that CPLR 302(a)(1) requires both that a defendant transacted business within the state and that the cause of action arose from that transaction of business. Focusing on the second prong, the court reiterated that a "substantial relationship" must be established between a defendant’s transactions in New York and a plaintiff’s cause of action, citing Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp. The plaintiffs' negligence claim arose from Daniel Ward's allegedly negligent driving in New Jersey, not from the issuance of a New York driver’s license or vehicle registration. The relationship between the negligence claim and Daniel Ward’s possession of a New York license and registration at the time of the accident was deemed "too insubstantial" and "merely coincidental" to establish the necessary nexus for jurisdiction. The court explicitly stated that it was unnecessary to decide whether possession of a New York driver’s license and vehicle registration qualifies as a transaction of "business" under the first prong of CPLR 302(a)(1).
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the "arising from" prong of New York's long-arm statute (CPLR 302(a)(1)) for tort claims. It establishes that a mere tangential connection, such as holding a state license or registration, is insufficient to establish jurisdiction when the actual tortious act occurs out-of-state, even if the parties were formerly New York residents. The ruling reinforces that the defendant's in-state activities must be directly and substantially related to the specific cause of action, thereby limiting the reach of New York courts over non-domiciliaries for out-of-state torts and preventing plaintiffs from using incidental connections to establish jurisdiction.
