Personal jurisdiction in New York is a court’s authority to require a particular defendant to answer a lawsuit filed in the state. A New York court has that authority in three basic situations: when the defendant is “at home” in New York, when the defendant consented to being sued here, or when the defendant engaged in specific conduct listed in New York’s long-arm statute that connects the dispute to the state. In every case, the exercise of jurisdiction must also satisfy federal due process, and the defendant must be properly served.
General Jurisdiction and Specific Jurisdiction Are Not the Same
Before anything else, figure out which type of jurisdiction is on the table. General jurisdiction lets a New York court hear any claim against the defendant, no matter where the underlying events happened. Specific jurisdiction is narrower and reaches only claims that arise from the defendant’s particular activities in or affecting New York. The statute you rely on, the facts you need to prove, and your odds of success all depend on which one is in play.
For individuals, general jurisdiction exists where the person is domiciled. A New York domiciliary can be sued in New York on any claim, including one with nothing to do with the state.
For corporations, the standard tightened sharply in 2014. In Daimler AG v. Bauman, the Supreme Court held that a corporation is subject to general jurisdiction only where its contacts are “so continuous and systematic as to render [it] essentially at home” in the forum.1Justia. Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) For most companies, that means two places: the state of incorporation and the state of the principal place of business. CPLR 301, which codifies general jurisdiction in New York, is read against that backdrop.2New York State Senate. New York Code CVP 301 – Jurisdiction Over Persons, Property or Status The older “doing business” test — under which maintaining New York offices or employees was often enough — no longer carries the day. A foreign corporation with branch offices in New York usually will not be subject to general jurisdiction there.
If the defendant is not at home in New York, the plaintiff has to show specific jurisdiction, which means fitting the case into CPLR 302.
Specific Jurisdiction: CPLR 302 and the Long-Arm Statute
CPLR 302 lists the categories of out-of-state conduct that let a New York court reach a non-resident defendant. Each category requires that the lawsuit arise from the enumerated activity. Qualifying under the statute is necessary but not enough on its own: due process still has to be satisfied.3New York State Senate. New York Code CVP 302 – Personal Jurisdiction by Acts of Non-Domiciliaries
Transacting Business in New York
Under CPLR 302(a)(1), a non-resident who “transacts any business within the state” can be sued in New York on any claim arising from that business. Courts read the phrase broadly. Negotiating a contract, selling goods or services into New York, or maintaining an ongoing commercial relationship with a New York counterpart can qualify. Even a single transaction may be enough when the defendant purposefully engaged with the state.
Physical presence is not required. In Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp., the Court of Appeals upheld jurisdiction over a Texas-based individual who directed business into New York through a corporate agent without ever setting foot in the state.4New York Court of Appeals. Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp. The point was reinforced in Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc. v. Montana Board of Investments, where a sophisticated trader who used phone calls and electronic messages to close a $15 million bond transaction with a New York counterpart was subject to jurisdiction under 302(a)(1).5Thomson Reuters. Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc. v. Montana Bd. of Invs., 7 N.Y.3d 65 (2006) Courts look at who initiated contact, how often the parties dealt, and how much economic benefit the defendant drew from the state.
Tortious Conduct In and Out of New York
CPLR 302(a)(2) reaches a non-resident who commits a tortious act physically within New York. Fraud, assault, or similar wrongful conduct committed in person inside the state falls within this provision, but the defendant must have actually been in New York when the act occurred. Defamation claims are explicitly excluded.
CPLR 302(a)(3) fills the gap for wrongful conduct committed outside New York that causes injury inside the state. To invoke it, the plaintiff must also show one of two things: that the defendant regularly conducts business in New York or engages in a persistent course of conduct here, or that the defendant should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in New York and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce. In LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Manufacturing Co., the Court of Appeals upheld jurisdiction over a Texas manufacturer whose defective product injured a worker in Niagara, because the company knew its equipment was destined for New York and earned revenue from interstate commerce.6Justia. LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Mfg. Co. Defamation claims are excluded from 302(a)(3) as well.
New York Real Property
CPLR 302(a)(4) reaches a non-resident who owns, uses, or possesses real property in New York when the claim arises from that interest. Ownership on its own is not enough; the dispute has to connect to the property. A lease fight, an injury on the premises, or a maintenance dispute fits. A contract claim with no property link does not. Indirect interests, like shares in a cooperative apartment, can satisfy the statute when the dispute ties back to the property and the defendant derives financial benefit from it.
The Constitutional Ceiling: Minimum Contacts and Fair Play
Even when CPLR 301 or 302 is satisfied, the court still has to clear the Fourteenth Amendment. Under International Shoe Co. v. Washington, a court can exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident only when the defendant has “minimum contacts” with the forum such that the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”7Justia. International Shoe Co. v. Washington8Justia. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958)9Justia. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980)
Even solid contacts can lose if the overall exercise of jurisdiction is unreasonable. Courts weigh the burden on the defendant, New York’s interest in the dispute, the plaintiff’s interest in convenient relief, and the efficiency of litigating here.10Justia. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) In practice, cases that fit cleanly within CPLR 302 usually clear this hurdle, but it remains an independent check.
Consent to Jurisdiction
Consent is a separate path that skips the contacts analysis entirely. When a party agrees to be sued in New York, the court does not have to ask whether that party’s connections to the state would otherwise support jurisdiction.
Forum Selection Clauses
Contracts that designate New York as the forum for disputes are presumptively enforceable. A party trying to escape such a clause has to show that enforcement would be unreasonable, unjust, or the product of fraud or overreaching, under the standard set by the Supreme Court in The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.11Justia. The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1 (1972) Sophisticated commercial parties almost never clear that bar.
Waiver by Litigation Conduct
A defendant can also consent by how they behave in the case. Under CPLR 3211(e), a personal jurisdiction defense is waived if the defendant files any pre-answer motion under CPLR 3211(a) without including the jurisdiction objection, or if they skip the motion and fail to raise the objection in the responsive pleading.12FindLaw. New York Code CPLR 3211 – Motion to Dismiss Filing counterclaims, seeking affirmative relief, or participating in discovery without objection can be treated as implied consent. If jurisdiction is in doubt, the objection goes into the first paper you file.
Statutory Consent
Some activities trigger consent automatically. A non-resident who drives in New York is treated as having appointed the Secretary of State as agent for service of process on claims arising from that driving, under Vehicle and Traffic Law 253.13New York State Senate. New York Code VAT 253 – Service of Summons on Non-Residents A foreign corporation authorized to do business in New York must designate the Secretary of State as its agent for service under Business Corporation Law 304.14FindLaw. New York Code Business Corporation Law 304 – Statutory Designation of Secretary of State as Agent for Service of Process
Whether registering to do business in New York by itself amounts to consent to general jurisdiction over any claim is an unsettled question after Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., which held that the Due Process Clause does not forbid states from treating registration that way when the statute is explicit about it.15Supreme Court of the United States. Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co. How New York’s statutes will be read in light of Mallory is still being worked out.
Proper Service of Process
Jurisdiction over the defendant does not matter if the defendant was not properly served. New York’s service rules are in CPLR Article 3, and the method depends on who the defendant is.
Serving an Individual
CPLR 308 lists the available methods, roughly in order of preference:16New York State Senate. New York Code CVP 308 – Personal Service Upon a Natural Person
- Personal delivery of the summons to the defendant within New York.
- Substituted service by delivering the summons to a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant’s home or workplace, then mailing a copy; the delivery and mailing must happen within 20 days of each other.
- Delivery to an agent the defendant has authorized to accept service.
- “Nail and mail” service — affixing the summons to the door of the home or workplace and mailing a copy — available only after personal and substituted service have been attempted with due diligence.
- Court-ordered alternative service, available on motion when every other method is impracticable.
Serving a Corporation
CPLR 311 requires service on a corporate defendant to be made on an officer, director, managing or general agent, or another agent authorized to accept service.17New York State Senate. New York Code CVP 311 – Personal Service Upon a Corporation or Governmental Subdivision For corporations registered to do business in New York, service can also go through the Secretary of State under Business Corporation Law 306.18FindLaw. New York Code Business Corporation Law 306 – Service of Process Handing papers to whoever happens to be at the front desk does not meet CPLR 311; the recipient must have actual authority.
The 120-Day Deadline
Under CPLR 306-b, the plaintiff must serve the summons and complaint within 120 days of commencing the action.19New York State Senate. New York Code CVP 306-b – Service of the Summons and Complaint Miss it, and the court must dismiss the case without prejudice on the defendant’s motion. The court can extend the time for good cause or in the interest of justice, but relying on an extension is risky. For claims with a statute of limitations of four months or less, service must occur no later than 15 days after the limitations period expires.
Challenging Personal Jurisdiction
A defendant who believes a New York court lacks personal jurisdiction moves to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(8).20New York State Unified Court System. New York CPLR 3211 – Motion to Dismiss The court looks at affidavits, contracts, business records, and other evidence to decide whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for jurisdiction. If not, the case is dismissed before the merits are ever reached.
Timing is the trap. The jurisdictional objection has to be in the first responsive filing, whether that is a pre-answer motion or the answer itself. A defendant who litigates on the substance before raising jurisdiction can be told they consented by participation.12FindLaw. New York Code CPLR 3211 – Motion to Dismiss
Defective service is a separate ground for dismissal. When service does not comply with the CPLR, the court can dismiss or, where good cause or the interest of justice supports it, extend the time for re-service under CPLR 306-b.19New York State Senate. New York Code CVP 306-b – Service of the Summons and Complaint Courts do grant extensions, but a plaintiff who sat on the case for months without a real excuse should not count on one.