Court Opinion

ID: 5798911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 18:23:52.591275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:42:30.705634
License: Public Domain

Herlihy, P.J. (dissenting).
The only contact of the defendant with New York State took place informally over the course of one day. Under such circumstances, even though it may be *60argued that a relationship of an employer-employee existed, the defendant should not be subject to suit in this State.
The words of the Court of Appeals are applicable here. In McKee Elec. Co. v Rauland-Borg Corp. (20 NY2d 377, 383) the court stated: "In our enthusiasm to implement the reach of the long-arm statute (CPLR 302), we should not forget that defendants, as a rule, should be subject to suit where they are normally found, that is, at their pre-eminent headquarters, or where they conduct substantial general business activities. Only in a rare case should they be compelled to answer a suit in a jurisdiction with which they have the barest of contact [citation omitted].”
Accordingly, we vote to affirm.
Sweeney and Reynolds, JJ., concur with Kane, J.; Herlihy, P. J., and Main, J., dissent and vote to affirm in an opinion by Herlihy, P. J.
Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and complaint reinstated.