In May the Court of Appeals issued an important decision on permissible exercise of long-arm jurisdiction by New York courts over an Ohio merchant of guns. For those of us, who may believe we know most everything about New York’s venerable long-arm statute needed to make correct jurisdictional evaluations, the new decision can be somewhat humbling. Why? Because the court divided 4-3 on the result, complete with majority, concurring and dissenting opinions.

By reading the starkly opposing viewpoints—based on the same facts—one can see that there may be little room for smugness re one’s own evaluation of a long-arm jurisdiction scenario. The case is Williams v. Beemiller (N.Y. Ct. App., May 9, 2019). Chief Judge Janet DiFiore wrote the opinion for the court, joined in by three Judges (with Judge Paul Feinman also writing a separate concurring opinion). Judge Eugene Fahey dissented with two Judges joining his opinion.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]