Corvus Capital Ltd. v. Strand Hanson Ltd.

Summary

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed dismissal of Corvus Capital Ltd.'s amended complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 3211(a)(8). The court held that a prelitigation letter sent by a New York law firm on behalf of a foreign defendant to a California company did not constitute a tortious act within New York under CPLR 302(a)(2), particularly where the letter was not sent to the party with whom the plaintiff claimed a business relationship. The court did not reach the alternative forum non conveniens issue.

Holdings

1. A prelitigation letter sent by a law firm in New York on behalf of an overseas client to a company in California, without any other nexus between the defendant and New York, does not satisfy CPLR 302(a)(2)'s requirement that the tortious act occur within New York. The amended complaint therefore failed to establish a basis for long-arm jurisdiction over Strand Hanson.
2. Because long-arm jurisdiction was not appropriate, the court did not need to reach the alternative determination that the action should be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds.
3. The court exercised its discretion, in the interest of judicial economy, to treat the amended complaint as the operative pleading and consider the motion to dismiss it, despite the lower court order's failure to clearly reference the amended complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint alleged a tortious act within New York sufficient to support personal jurisdiction over the nondomiciliary defendant under CPLR 302(a)(2).
2. Whether the court needed to reach the alternative forum non conveniens ground for dismissal after concluding that personal jurisdiction was lacking.

Disposition

affirmed