Fischbarg v. Doucet - 2007 NY Slip Op 9962, 9 N.Y.3d 375, 849 N.Y.S.2d 501, 880 N.E.2d 22

Rule:

CPLR 302(a)(1) jurisdiction is proper even though the defendant never enters New York State, so long as the defendant's activities here were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted. Purposeful activities are those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the privileges and benefits of its laws. Not all purposeful activity, however, constitutes a "transaction of business" within the meaning of CPLR 302(a)(1). Although it is impossible to precisely fix those acts that constitute a transaction of business, New York precedents establish that it is the quality of the defendants' New York contacts that is the primary consideration.

Facts:

In February 2001, defendant Suzanne Bell-Doucet, a California resident and president of defendant Only New Age Music, Inc. (ONAM), a California corporation, hired an attorney, Gabriek Fischbarg, to defend them in a suit filed against them in Oregon. The parties never met; they communicated about the case by telephone, mail, facsimile, and e-mail. The defendants never were physically present in New York. Fischbarg litigated the case from his New York office. Due to a dispute as to the terms of Fischbarg’s retainer, defendants accepted his e-mailed resignation as their attorney. They then settled the Oregon case. Fischbarg filed the present lawsuit seeking damages for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. His complaint recited no specific statutory basis for personal jurisdiction over defendants. Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division agreed. The Appellate Division granted defendants leave to appeal to the present court.

Issue:

Did the Supreme Court properly exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants, an individual and corporation, both residents of California, who retained a New York attorney to represent the corporation in an action brought in an Oregon federal court?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

 The high court agreed with the lower courts that New York had personal jurisdiction over defendants under CPLR 302(a)(1). The defendants contacted Fischbarg in New York to retain him and thereby projected themselves into New York’s legal services market and invoked the benefits and protections of its laws relating to the attorney-client relationship. Their contacts with New York were sufficient, consisting of solicitation of Fischbarg’s services and frequent communications with him. Given these facts, they should have reasonably expected to defend against a suit based on their relationship with him in New York.