New York’s long-arm statute, found at CPLR 302, lets state courts hear lawsuits against people and companies that don’t live or have offices in New York, provided the claim grows out of specific contacts the defendant had with the state. The statute lists four categories of activity that can pull a nonresident into a New York courtroom: transacting business here, committing a tort here, committing a tort elsewhere that causes injury here, or owning real property here. If the lawsuit arises from one of those contacts, a New York court can exercise jurisdiction even over a defendant who has never set foot in the state.
The Four Triggers Under CPLR 302(a)
CPLR 302(a) does the heavy lifting. Each of its four subsections describes a different kind of contact that can support jurisdiction, and courts evaluate the quality of that contact, not just how often it happened.1New York State Senate. New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Law 302 – Personal Jurisdiction by Acts of Non-Domiciliaries
Transacting Business in New York
CPLR 302(a)(1) covers nonresidents who “transact any business” in New York or contract to supply goods or services here, as long as the lawsuit arises from that activity. It’s the provision cited most often in commercial disputes. A single purposeful transaction can be enough. In George Reiner & Co. v. Schwartz (1964), one business meeting in New York where the deal was reached was sufficient, and the Court of Appeals confirmed in Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp. (1988) that a solitary purposeful act in the state can satisfy the statute.
Committing a Tort in New York
CPLR 302(a)(2) reaches nonresidents who commit a wrongful act while physically present in New York. A car accident on a New York highway, an in-person fraud, or an assault during a business trip all fall within this provision. One important carve-out: defamation claims are excluded from both this subsection and 302(a)(3). A plaintiff suing a nonresident for defamation cannot use the long-arm statute’s tort provisions and must find another jurisdictional hook.
Out-of-State Tort Causing Injury in New York
CPLR 302(a)(3) covers the harder scenario: the wrongful act happened somewhere else, but the injury occurred in New York. This provision carries extra requirements. The defendant must either regularly do or solicit business in the state, engage in a persistent course of conduct here, or derive substantial revenue from goods or services used in New York. Alternatively, jurisdiction attaches when the defendant should reasonably have expected the act to have consequences here and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce. Product liability cases involving out-of-state manufacturers whose goods injure New York consumers usually move under this subsection.
Owning Real Property in New York
CPLR 302(a)(4) is the simplest trigger. A nonresident who owns, uses, or possesses real property in New York can be sued here on any claim arising from that property. Landlord-tenant disputes, premises liability cases, and foreclosure actions involving out-of-state owners all fit.
How Long-Arm Jurisdiction Differs From General Jurisdiction
The long-arm statute provides what courts call specific jurisdiction: the claim must arise from the defendant’s specific New York contacts. That’s different from general jurisdiction under CPLR 301, which lets a court hear any claim against a defendant whose connection to the state is deep enough to make New York essentially their home.2New York State Senate. New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Law 301 – Jurisdiction Over Persons, Property or Status For individuals, general jurisdiction typically turns on domicile. For corporations, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed it in Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) to the places where the company is “essentially at home,” generally its state of incorporation or principal place of business.
The practical difference matters. Under general jurisdiction, a defendant can be sued in New York on anything. Under the long-arm statute, the lawsuit has to connect back to the defendant’s New York activity. If a nonresident signed a contract in Manhattan and that contract blows up, 302(a)(1) applies. The same nonresident cannot be sued in New York over a separate car accident in Ohio just because they once did a deal here.
Websites and Online Business
CPLR 302 was written before the internet, so courts have adapted its “transacting business” prong to online conduct. Many federal courts analyze website-based jurisdiction under the sliding scale from Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. (1997), and New York courts generally reach similar results.
A purely passive website that just displays information to anyone who visits usually will not, by itself, create jurisdiction. A fully interactive site where the operator enters into contracts with New York customers and processes orders from the state generally will. In between sit interactive sites where users and the operator exchange information, and jurisdiction depends on the volume and commercial character of the New York activity, often combined with any traditional contacts the defendant has with the state. A handful of sales directed into New York can be enough.
Agreeing to New York Jurisdiction by Contract
A nonresident can also end up in a New York courtroom because they agreed to be there. Under General Obligations Law 5-1402, a forum selection clause choosing New York courts is enforceable against a nonresident when the contract covers a transaction worth at least one million dollars in the aggregate, contains a provision submitting to New York jurisdiction, and includes a New York choice-of-law clause under GOL 5-1401.3New York State Senate. New York General Obligations Law 5-1402 – Choice of Forum Commercial finance, real estate, and large corporate deals rely on this routinely.
Below the million-dollar threshold, New York courts still enforce forum selection clauses under ordinary contract principles, but a nonresident has more room to argue that enforcement would be unreasonable or that consent was lacking. Non-signatories are harder to bind. A court generally will not hold someone to a clause they never agreed to unless agency, alter ego, successor liability, or third-party beneficiary doctrines apply.
Corporate Officers Can’t Hide Behind the Company
Nonresident executives sometimes argue that whatever they did in New York, they did on behalf of their company, and so personal jurisdiction should reach only the company. That’s the “fiduciary shield” doctrine, and New York has rejected it. In Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp. (1988), the Court of Appeals held that an individual officer can be subject to personal jurisdiction under CPLR 302 for acts taken on behalf of a corporation, as long as the officer personally participated in the transaction or tort behind the lawsuit. A corporate title is not a shield.
The Constitutional Floor
Even if a nonresident’s conduct fits one of CPLR 302’s categories, the exercise of jurisdiction has to clear a constitutional minimum. International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) requires that a nonresident defendant have “minimum contacts” with the forum state before being hauled into court there, so that doing so does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.4Cornell Law Institute. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 US 310 In practice, satisfying one of the long-arm triggers usually satisfies the constitutional test too, but a defendant can argue both grounds.
If You’ve Been Served With a New York Lawsuit as a Nonresident
A nonresident defendant served with a New York summons has a short window to respond. Under CPLR 320(a), a defendant who was served outside the state generally has 30 days from the completion of service to answer or appear. Missing that window puts the defendant in default and exposes them to a default judgment. Ignoring the papers rarely helps and usually makes things worse.
Moving to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
The primary way to fight jurisdiction is a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(8).5New York State Senate. New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Law R3211 – Motion to Dismiss The objection must be raised in the defendant’s first responsive pleading or pre-answer motion. Raise it late, and it’s waived; the court will treat the defendant as having accepted its authority. Jurisdictional fights are fact-intensive. In Williams v. Beemiller, Inc. (2019), an individual firearms seller whose guns reached New York through a chain of intermediaries went through multiple rounds of litigation before the Appellate Division agreed that the evidence failed to establish his purposeful connection to the state.6Justia Law. Williams v Beemiller, Inc.
Jurisdictional Discovery
When the plaintiff suspects extensive New York ties but the proof sits in the defendant’s own files, CPLR 3211(d) allows a court to pause the dismissal motion and order discovery into jurisdictional facts. The standard is liberal. Under Peterson v. Spartan Industries, Inc. (1974), discovery should be permitted as long as the claim of jurisdiction is not frivolous, because requiring the plaintiff to prove jurisdiction before seeing the defendant’s records would often be impossible.
Appearing Without Giving Up More
One built-in protection for nonresident defendants is CPLR 302(c). When jurisdiction rests only on the long-arm statute, appearing to defend one claim does not open the defendant up to jurisdiction over unrelated claims. A nonresident who shows up to answer a contract dispute arising from a New York deal cannot be dragged, in that same appearance, into a separate lawsuit about something that has nothing to do with their New York activity.