Long-Arm Jurisdiction, E-Mail and Web Sites

New York's highest court has stated that technological advances in communication "enable a party to transact enormous volumes of business within a state without physically entering it."[FOOTNOTE 1] Accordingly, recent trial court decisions addressing electronic communications have had to determine whether such communications, along with other contacts, suffice to establish long-arm jurisdiction in New York.

Courts look to the substance and quality of the electronic communications to determine whether there is a sufficient connection to New York. Thus, electronic contacts, when coupled with a sufficient nexus between the transaction, defendant's actions and New York state, will sustain long-arm jurisdiction.[FOOTNOTE 2]

To make a case for jurisdiction, the cases discussed here illustrate that a court's decision on a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction will hinge on the facts contained in affidavits asserting the jurisdictional predicates. And while the burden is on a plaintiff to demonstrate jurisdiction, the "plaintiff need only demonstrate that facts may exist to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant" and courts are required to view the evidence presented by the parties "in the light most favorable to the plaintiff."[FOOTNOTE 3]

Thus, it is imperative that counsel provide the court with as much factual jurisdictional detail as possible to ensure that jurisdiction is upheld.

E-MAIL

Using a test of "articulable nexus," a trial court recently upheld personal jurisdiction over the defendant in CPI NA Parnassus.[FOOTNOTE 4] The plaintiff was a Netherlands limited liability company with a principal place of business in Amsterdam that had loaned money to a foreign non-party.

To Continue Reading: Click Here
--------------------------------------------
Source: law.com
By: Mark A. Berman