Klein v. Whirlpool Corp.

Summary

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint against Whirlpool Corporation and other defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that the plaintiff failed to comply with New York service requirements for individuals and corporations, and that the trial court should have declined to reach the alternative failure-to-state-a-claim ground because jurisdiction had not been acquired.

Holdings

1. The plaintiff failed to comply with the service requirements governing service upon a natural person and a corporation, and also failed to satisfy the requirements for service by mail under CPLR 312-a. The Supreme Court therefore properly dismissed the complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction.
2. Because the court had not acquired jurisdiction over the defendants, the Supreme Court should have denied as academic the branch of the defendants' motion under CPLR 3211(a)(7), rather than deciding that branch on the merits.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendants were properly served so that the court acquired personal jurisdiction.
2. Whether the Supreme Court should have reached the defendants' CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action after determining that service was jurisdictionally defective.
3. Whether the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend should affect the disposition.

Disposition

affirmed