Carey, a New York resident, sued the defendant ranch in a New York court for an
injury he suffered in Colorado when he fell off a horse at the ranch.
The trial court dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that it did not have
personal jurisdiction over the defendant since the defendant, by soliciting
plaintiff’s visit, did not engage in business in New York by that action.
In this opinion, the Appellate Division agrees with the trial court.
an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as
limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau
County (Phelan, J.), entered January 3, 2002, as granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from,
personal injury action arose when the plaintiff, a New York resident who writes
for travel magazines, fell off a horse while horseback riding at C Lazy U Ranch
(hereinafter the Ranch) in Colorado. The plaintiff was invited to the Ranch for
a press trip weekend. All expenses for the trip were paid by the Ranch. The
Ranch is a Kansas corporation with no offices, employees, or agents in New York,
nor does it have any bank accounts in New York. The plaintiff was solicited by a
Colorado‑based public relations firm hired by the Ranch. All
communications between the parties were carried out via the mail and fax. The
president of the Ranch stated in an affidavit that his hope was that the
plaintiff would have a pleasurable experience and write a favorable article
about the Ranch in a travel magazine.
agree with the Supreme Court that there is no basis in this case to exercise
long‑arm jurisdiction over the defendants for an accident occurring in
Colorado (see Kreutter v. McFadden Oil
Corp., 71 N.Y.2d 460, 467; CPLR 302[a] ). The lone act of soliciting the
plaintiff to visit the Ranch in Colorado with the hope that the plaintiff might
write a favorable article for publication in a travel magazine, plus the mailing
of a press kit to the plaintiff in New York, does not qualify as a purposeful
act performed by the defendants in New York so as to constitute the transaction
of business in the State (see Kreutter v.
McFadden Oil Corp., supra; La Rosa v.
Levine, 49 Misc.2d 932, 933; CPLR 302[a] ). Accordingly, the Supreme
Court properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.
plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
to Top of This Page
Return to Miscellaneous Cases Page