Minella v. Restifo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Minella v. Restifo

124 A.D.3d 486, 3 N.Y.S.3d 322

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 20, 2015

Docket13973 21343/13

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 124 A.D.3d 486 (Minella v. Restifo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Minella v. Restifo, 124 A.D.3d 486, 3 N.Y.S.3d 322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered September 16, 2013, which, in this medical malpractice action, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

Personal jurisdiction does not exist pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1), as there is insufficient evidence that defendant “transacts any business within [New York State]” or that he “contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state.” Indeed, it is uncontroverted that defendant is licensed to practice medicine in Connecticut, not New York. Although defendant is associated with a Connecticut facility (Split Rock) whose website displays a New York office and telephone number, Split Rock and defendant maintain separate websites. Further, the listing of a New York office and telephone number on a website, without more, is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction (see Paterno v Laser Spine Inst., 24 3SiY3d 370, 377 [2014]; Arouh v Budget Leasing, Inc., 63 AD3d 506 [1st Dept 2009]). The Split Rock website “merely impart [s] information without permitting a business transaction” (Paterno, 24 NY3d at 377). Further, defendant averred without contradiction that the New York address and telephone number on the website refers to his associate Dr. Neil Gordon, who is licensed to (and does) practice medicine in New York. That defendant’s associate is a licensed New York physician does not confer jurisdiction over defendant (see Barrett v Toroyan, 28 AD3d 331, 333 [1st Dept 2006]).

Personal jurisdiction does not exist pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (3) (i), as plaintiff was injured outside New York State. In a medical malpractice action, for the purposes of the long-arm *487 statute, “the injury occurs where the malpractice took place” (O’Brien v Hackensack Univ. Med. Ctr., 305 AD2d 199, 202 [1st Dept 2003]), and it is undisputed that the alleged malpractice here occurred in Connecticut.

Discovery on the jurisdictional issue is not warranted, as plaintiff has failed to make a “sufficient start” in demonstrating the existence of long-arm jurisdiction over defendant (cf. Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 467 [1974]; see SunLight Gen. Capital LLC v CJS Invs. Inc., 114 AD3d 521, 522 [1st Dept 2014]).

Based on the foregoing determination, it is unnecessary to determine whether New York is a convenient forum.

Concur— Tom, J.E, Saxe, Feinman, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Stanley Green, J.), entered September 16, 2013, which, in this medical malpractice action, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

Personal jurisdiction does not exist pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1), as there is insufficient evidence that defendant “transacts any business within [New York State]” or that he “contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state.” Indeed, it is uncontroverted that defendant is licensed to practice medicine in Connecticut, not New York. Although defendant is associated with a Connecticut facility (Split Rock) whose website displays a New York office and telephone number, Split Rock and defendant maintain separate websites. Further, the listing of a New York office and telephone number on a website, without more, is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction (see Paterno v Laser Spine Inst., 24 3SiY3d 370, 377 [2014]; Arouh v Budget Leasing, Inc., 63 AD3d 506 [1st Dept 2009]). The Split Rock website “merely impart [s] information without permitting a business transaction” (Paterno, 24 NY3d at 377). Further, defendant averred without contradiction that the New York address and telephone number on the website refers to his associate Dr. Neil Gordon, who is licensed to (and does) practice medicine in New York. That defendant’s associate is a licensed New York physician does not confer jurisdiction over defendant (see Barrett v Toroyan, 28 AD3d 331, 333 [1st Dept 2006]).

Personal jurisdiction does not exist pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (3) (i), as plaintiff was injured outside New York State. In a medical malpractice action, for the purposes of the long-arm *487 statute, “the injury occurs where the malpractice took place” (O’Brien v Hackensack Univ. Med. Ctr., 305 AD2d 199, 202 [1st Dept 2003]), and it is undisputed that the alleged malpractice here occurred in Connecticut.

Discovery on the jurisdictional issue is not warranted, as plaintiff has failed to make a “sufficient start” in demonstrating the existence of long-arm jurisdiction over defendant (cf. Peterson v Spartan Indus., 33 NY2d 463, 467 [1974]; see SunLight Gen. Capital LLC v CJS Invs. Inc., 114 AD3d 521, 522 [1st Dept 2014]).

Based on the foregoing determination, it is unnecessary to determine whether New York is a convenient forum.

Concur— Tom, J.E, Saxe, Feinman, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 486, 3 N.Y.S.3d 322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/minella-v-restifo-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack