Opinion
8119 & M–5412 Index 152189/14
01-17-2019
NEW YORK HELICOPTER CHARTER, INC., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Peter BORNEMAN Doing Business as Aircraft Maintenance Specialists, et al., Defendants, Keystone Turbine Services, LLC, Defendant–Appellant.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Harrison (Gregory Picciano and James E. Robinson of the bar of the State of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellant. Andrew D. Greene, P.C., Lake Success (Andrew D. Greene of counsel), for respondent.
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, Harrison (Gregory Picciano and James E. Robinson of the bar of the State of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellant.
Andrew D. Greene, P.C., Lake Success (Andrew D. Greene of counsel), for respondent.
Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Gische, Mazzarelli, Kahn, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered January 18, 2018, which denied the motion of defendant Keystone Turbine Services, LLC (Keystone) to dismiss the complaint as against it, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of dismissing the cause of action alleging breach of warranty, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff made a sufficient showing under CPLR 302(a)(1) to establish that New York courts have jurisdiction over Keystone (see Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp. , 71 N.Y.2d 460, 467, 527 N.Y.S.2d 195, 522 N.E.2d 40 [1988] ; Robins v. Procure Treatment Ctrs., Inc. , 157 A.D.3d 606, 607, 70 N.Y.S.3d 457 [1st Dept. 2018] ). The evidence reflects that the claim of negligence in Keystone's maintenance, installation, and turbine repair arises out of Keystone's contacts with New York (see Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall , 466 U.S. 408, 414, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 [1984] ). Keystone chose to do business with a New York resident when it was hired to continuously repair the turbine at issue, and made visits to New York to observe the effect of the engine's failure and inspect the engine (see D & R Global Selections, S.L. v. Bodega Olegario Falcon Pineiro , 29 N.Y.3d 292, 298–299, 56 N.Y.S.3d 488, 78 N.E.3d 1172 [2017] ; Scheuer v. Schwartz , 42 A.D.3d 314, 316, 839 N.Y.S.2d 485 [1st Dept. 2007] ).
We modify to dismiss the breach of warranty claim because the repairs Keystone made on the subject turbine were services and not a sale of a refurbished turbine (see Gutarts v. Fox , 104 A.D.3d 457, 459, 961 N.Y.S.2d 101 [1st Dept. 2013] ; Aegis Prods. v. Arriflex Corp. of Am. , 25 A.D.2d 639, 268 N.Y.S.2d 185 [1st Dept. 1966] ). Although Keystone's invoices state "sold to," the invoices clearly outlined that the bill was for the services Keystone conducted to repair the turbine.
We have considered the remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
M–5412 – New York Helicopter Charter, Inc. v. Peter Borneman
Motion to enlarge the record granted.