Opinion
George F. Hildebrandt, Syracuse, for appellant.
Devorsetz, Stinziano, Gilberti and Smith, P.C. by Frank Bersani, Syracuse, for respondent.
Before DENMAN, P.J., and LAWTON, FALLON, BALIO and BOEHM, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
Plaintiff, a New York corporation, commenced this action against defendant, a Wisconsin corporation, to recover damages arising out of the breach of an equipment lease. The representatives of the parties met at a trade show in Florida, where plaintiff agreed to lease to defendant certain construction equipment, including a concrete form. The lease was negotiated and consummated via mail, telephone and fax. Pursuant to the agreement, plaintiff shipped the concrete form to defendant at defendant's expense. Defendant agreed to make monthly payments to plaintiff in New York and to ship the equipment back to plaintiff in New York at defendant's expense at the end of the lease term. It is undisputed that defendant does not conduct business in New York and neither sells products nor supplies goods or services within New York (see, CPLR [624 N.Y.S.2d 497] 302[a][1]. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), asserting lack of jurisdiction. Supreme Court denied defendant's motion, holding that there was sufficient purposeful New York conduct to subject defendant to long-arm jurisdiction under the "transacts any business" test of CPLR 302(a)(1). We reverse.
It is well established that a foreign defendant whose only contact with New York is the purchase of goods by telephone or mail from a New York plaintiff is not subject to long-arm jurisdiction (M. Katz and Son Billiard Prods., Inc. v. Correale and Sons, Inc., 20 N.Y.2d 903, 285 N.Y.S.2d 871, 232 N.E.2d 864, affg 26 A.D.2d 52, 270 N.Y.S.2d 672; Success Mktg. Elecs. v. Titan Sec., 204 A.D.2d 711, 712, 612 N.Y.S.2d 451; Pacamor Bearings, Inc. v. Molon Motors & Coil, 102 A.D.2d 355, 356, 477 N.Y.S.2d 856; Galgay v. Bulletin Co., Inc., 504 F.2d 1062; see generally, Siegel, N.Y.Prac. § 86, at 126 [2d ed.]. It makes no difference that this case involves a lease rather than a purchase, that the payments were transmitted to New York, or that the equipment was to be returned to New York at the end of the lease term.
Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed.