In Mejia-Haffner v. Killington, Ltd., the plaintiff sued Killington Ski Resort in New York for a ski accident that occurred at the Vermont ski mountain. Killington moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
In New York, a foreign corporation is amenable to suit in New York in two situations. The first is under CPLR 301, which allows a court to exercise jurisdiction where the “solicitation plus” standard is satisfied. This requires a showing of activities of substance in addition to a solicitation of business. The second basis for exercising jurisdiction is New York’s long-arm statute: CPLR 302. Under this statute, New York courts have jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary if it transacted business in New York or contracted to provide services in New York. Jurisdiction is proper even if the defendant never enters New York provided the activities were purposeful and there is a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted.
The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that either CPLR 301 or 302 enabled it to exercise jurisdiction over Killington. The plaintiff argued that a substantial relationship existed between Killington and New York since its website enabled New Yorkers to purchase ski lessons. Previously, New York had permitted long arm jurisdiction where the claim asserted arose out of business transacted via a website. However, in this case, where the plaintiff alleged she was injured due to inadequate ski instruction on the mountain, the court found that there was not a sufficient relationship between the website booking and the claim. Since the claim was too remote from Killington’s sales and promotional activities to support long-arm jurisdiction under either standard, summary judgment in favor of the resort was affirmed.
Thanks to Gabe Darwick for his contribution.