Opinion
April 25, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.).
The IAS Court properly dismissed the present action, seeking recovery for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while on a vessel owned and operated by defendant in territorial waters off Norway, for lack of in personam jurisdiction over the nondomiciliary defendant, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas, which maintains no place of business or office in this State and which owns five sea vessels that do not operate in New York waters. We agree with the IAS Court that there exist no significant minimum contacts, ties or relations between defendant and this State ( see, World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291-294), and that defendant foreign corporation is not amenable to suit in the courts of this State pursuant to CPLR 301 where it has not engaged in such a "continuous and systematic course of 'doing business' here that a finding of its 'presence' in this jurisdiction is warranted" ( Landoil Resources Corp. v. Alexander Alexander Servs., 77 N.Y.2d 28, 33). Nor may the courts of this State exercise "long-arm jurisdiction" over the nondomiciliary defendant pursuant to CPLR 302 because the defendant did not transact any business or contract to provide any goods or services in this State ( see, Frummer v. Hilton Hotels Intl., 19 N.Y.2d 533, 535-536, cert denied 389 U.S. 923). The fact that defendant hired plaintiff through a Maryland-based union, which used a New York hiring hall, is too remote to confer jurisdiction ( cf., Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes Reinecke, 15 N.Y.2d 443, 456-458).
Defendant did not waive the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, having clearly asserted that affirmative defense in its answer ( see, Gager v. White, 53 N.Y.2d 475, 488, cert denied sub nom. Guertin Co. v. Cachat, 454 U.S. 1086). We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Kupferman, Ross and Tom, JJ.