As the Second Department held in Aybar v. Aybar, 169 A.D.3d 137, 93 N.Y.S.3d 159 [2d Dept. 2019], lv dismissed 33 N.Y.3d 1044, 103 N.Y.S.3d 17, 126 N.E.3d 1057 [2019], a corporate defendant's registration to do business in New York and the designation of the Secretary of State to accept service of process in New York does not constitute consent by the corporation to submit to the general jurisdiction of New York for causes of action that are unrelated to the corporation's affiliations with New York. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss on ground of CPLR 301 was properly granted (see alsoBest v. Guthrie Med. Group, P.C., 175 A.D.3d 1048, 107 N.Y.S.3d 258 [4th Dept. 2019] ; Gronich & Co., Inc. v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc., 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 31107(U), 2019 WL 1765905 [Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2019] ; Kline v. Facebook, Inc., 62 Misc.3d 1207[A], 2019 WL 209516 [Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2019] ; Kyowa Seni Co., Ltd. v ANA Aircraft Technics, Co., Ltd., 60 Misc.3d 898, 80 N.Y.S.3d 866 [Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2018] ). Nor do plaintiffs show grounds to disturb the court's determination that defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1).
Facebook, in opposition to Plaintiff's motion, raises the threshold issue of whether, as a foreign corporation which does business in the State of New York, it is subject to general personal jurisdiction within the state. Citing United States Supreme Court precedent ( Daimler AG v Bauman , 571 US 117 [2011] ) and recent holdings of the New York County Supreme Court ( Kline v Facebook , 62 Misc 3d 1207[A] [Supreme Court, New York Co. 2019] and Amelius v Grand Imperial LLC , 57 Misc 3d 835 [Supreme Court New York Co., 2017] ) Facebook argues that it is not subject to general personal jurisdiction in New York. Plaintiff has taken no position on the caselaw cited by Facebook.
As noted, both in defendant's memorandum in support and in the complaint, both parties are Delaware companies with principal places of business in Virginia (Compl. ΒΆΒΆ 17-18). While plaintiff argues that defendant, by listing employment opportunities and staffing employees in New York State, has had continuous and systematic contact so as to effectively render Perspecta at home in New York, these facts alone are not sufficient to establish general jurisdiction as New York courts have repeatedly found that out-of-state companies employing New York residents does not rise to the level necessary to find a defendant is "at home" in New York (Aybar v Aybar, 169 AD3d 137, 145-146 [2d Dept 2019]; Kyowa Seni, Co., Ltd. v ANA Aircraft Technics, Co., Ltd., 60 Misc3d 898, 903 [Sup Ct New York County 2018]; see also Kline v Facebook, Inc. and Google, LLC, 62 Misc3d 1207(A) [Sup Ct New York County 2019] ["Although respondents do not deny that they have offices in New York City, petitioner fails to establish that the presence of those offices signifies that respondents had the required 'continuous and systematic' affiliations with the Stale of New York"]). Having relied on its argument that defendant has continuous and systematic contacts with New York, plaintiff makes no argument that "exceptional circumstances" exist here so as to render defendant at home in New York, nor could it.