New York Law Review

Parke-Bernet Galleries, Inc. v. Franklyn, 41 N.Y.2d 103 (1976): Establishing Jurisdiction Based on Business Transactions and Tortious Acts

Published by

The New York Law Review

in

Parke-Bernet Galleries, Inc. v. Franklyn, 41 N.Y.2d 103 (1976)

A New York court lacks personal jurisdiction over non-residents when their activities in New York are minimal and do not constitute transacting business or causing tortious injury within the state.

Summary

Parke-Bernet Galleries sued Florida residents in New York to recover property transferred as compensation for services. The defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding that the defendants’ limited contacts with New York, such as contacting banks for property appraisals and a single visit to view property, did not constitute transacting business within the state under CPLR 302(a)(1). Furthermore, the alleged tortious conduct (fraud and misrepresentation) did not occur in New York, nor did it cause injury to person or property in New York, precluding jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(2) and (3).

Facts

Plaintiffs transferred real and personal property in Florida to defendants, who resided in Florida, as compensation for services related to a tax-saving plan. The plan involved transferring assets in trust to a Georgia-based tax-exempt corporation. Real property in New York was conveyed to the charitable corporation as the trust res. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants contacted New York banks for property appraisals. One defendant visited New York to view the property with a representative of the charitable corporation. The plaintiffs alleged fraud and deceit in obtaining compensation, including collusion with the tax-exempt corporation and misrepresentation of legal authority to conduct business in New York. All negotiations and payment of compensation occurred in Florida.

Procedural History

Plaintiffs brought suit in New York seeking to recover real and personal property. Defendants cross-moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction in response to a motion by plaintiffs to compel examination before trial. The Appellate Division granted the defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the defendants were transacting business within the State of New York within the contemplation of CPLR 302(a)(1) such that personal jurisdiction could be established.
2. Whether the defendants committed a tortious act within or without the State of New York, causing injury to person or property within the state under CPLR 302(a)(2) and (3), thereby establishing personal jurisdiction.

Holding

1. No, because the defendants’ activities in New York were minimal and did not constitute a purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities within the state, thus not satisfying the requirements of CPLR 302(a)(1).
2. No, because the alleged tortious conduct did not occur in New York, nor did it cause injury to person or property within the state, thus precluding jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(2) and (3).

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants transacted business in New York within the meaning of CPLR 302(a)(1). The negotiations, agreement for compensation, and payment all occurred in Florida. The defendants’ contacts with New York, limited to contacting banks for appraisals and a single visit to view the property, were insufficient to establish jurisdiction. These activities did not constitute the purposeful transaction of business within the state, nor did they establish a direct relationship between the cause of action and the defendants’ contacts with New York.

Regarding the alleged tortious conduct, the Court found no evidence that any misconduct occurred in New York or that any injury was caused to person or property in New York. “Whatever may be said of the legal sufficiency of these allegations, there is no showing that any of the misconduct charged took place in New York or that any injury was caused to person or property in New York.” Therefore, jurisdiction could not be sustained under CPLR 302(a)(2) or (3).

The Court emphasized that the burden of proof rests on the party asserting jurisdiction to demonstrate an adequate basis for it. The plaintiffs failed to meet this burden by providing sufficient evidence of the defendants’ activities in New York.

More ARTICLES