DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Defendant moves to dismiss the action (1) for want of personal jurisdiction, (z) for want of proper service, (3) on the basis of forum nonconveniens, and (4) due to the statute of limitations. Plaintiff opposes contending that jurisdiction is proper, defendant was properly served, New York is the most convenient forum for defendant where plaintiff may maintain an action, and the action was timely commenced. The threshold question this Court must determine is where the alleged tort occurred, in order to apply the laws of that state. Plaintiff, a flight attendant, alleges defendant’s dog bit her during a flight between Beijing, China and Newark, New Jersey. Where the Court is presented with conflicting laws and jurisdictions, “the law of the jurisdiction which has the strongest interest in the resolution of the particular issue presented” shall apply (Babcock v. Jackson, 12 NY2d 473 [1963]). Here, plaintiff alleges she was bitten by defendant’s dog on an international flight from China to New Jersey. The aircraft’s precise location at the time of the alleged bite cannot be determined, although the parties believe the incident occurred somewhere over the Western United States. The parties do not dispute that defendant owns a condominium in New York county, and that she owns the dog at issue. Plaintiff was a New York resident at the time of the alleged incident, attending college in Manhattan. Although an airline passenger is unaware of the precise route an aircraft may travel, and therefore which jurisdictions the aircraft may pass, the passenger is presumed aware of the laws in his or her home state. Accordingly, the Court finds New York, where defendant owns a home, attended college, and was traveling to, has the strongest interest in the resolution of this matter. Thus, the Court finds New York law applicable. The standard by which the Court measures whether it may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary defendant under New York law is well developed. CPLR §302.(a)(4) provides, in relevant part, that a non-domiciliary who “owns, uses or possesses any real property situated within the state” is subject to the jurisdiction of New York Courts. As discussed, supra, defendant owns a condominium residence in Manhattan. Consequently, CPLR §3oz is satisfied and the Court must determine whether jurisdiction complies with due process. Considering defendant owns a residence in Manhattan, was attending college in Manhattan, and was traveling from China to a New York City area airport, defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the state, and jurisdiction over her does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (Wilson v. Dantas, iz8 AD3d 176 [1st Dept zory]; see generally lnt’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 3z6 US 310 [1945]; World-Wide v. olkwagen Corp. v. Woodson, 44 US z86 [1980]). Therefore, the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over defendant. Turning to defendant’s contention that she was not personally served; defendant’s contention confuses the service requirements. Serving a copy of the papers commencing this action with the doorman of the building in which defendant owns a condominium and mailing same to her, constitutes effective personal service (see e.g. Krechmer v. Boulakh, z77 ADzd z88 [zd Dept zoooj). To the extent that defendant contends a Traverse hearing is necessary under these facts, she is mistaken (id.). To the extent that defendant contends New York is a forum nonconveniens, this Court does not so find. Defendant contends California is a more appropriate forum. As discussed, supra, the aircraft's exact location at the time of the alleged incident cannot be determined, and thus it cannot be said that the incident occurred in California. Moreover, neither party has any connection to California. Defendant does not explain why defending an action in California is any less burdensome than in New York. Finally, defendant does not consent to jurisdiction in California, nor is it clear that California may properly assert jurisdiction, and dismissal predicated upon such conjecture is inappropriate. Finally, as to the statute of limitations, the Court declines defendant's request to apply the borrowing statute, CPLR §2.02., to find the instant action untimely. Consistent with the Court's reasoning above, as the alleged bite occurred while the flight was in-progress, considerations of practicality, fairness, and convenience all weigh in favor of finding that the instant action occurred within New York. As the instant action was brought within three years of the alleged incident, it is timely (CPLR §2.14[5]). Accordingly, it is ORDERED the motion is denied; and it is further ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a preliminary conference on July 15, 2.02.1 at 3:00pm via Microsoft Teams; and it is further ORDERED that the parties shall submit a single joint proposed preliminary conference order on or before July 12., 2.02.1 via NYSCEF and where counsel cannot reach agreement on material contained in the conference form they shall submit a single joint letter outlining same contemporaneously with the proposed conference order. Preliminary Conference forms are available at: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/Ijd/supctmanh/PC-Genl.pdf; and it is further ORDERED that counsel shall inform the Part Clerk of any scheduling conflicts by email ([email protected]) no later thanJune 2.8, 2.02.1. Counsel are reminded that the uniform and part rules prohibit adjournments greater than 2.1 days. Counsel seeking to adjourn this conference shall confer to find several mutually agreeable dates and times for the adjournment and notify the Part via email, as above. The Court holds conferences on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday afternoons. Counsel shall contemporaneously submit the proposed adjournment dates to the Court via letter, uploaded to NYSCEF as a “Letter to Judge,” by June 28, 2021. The conference will not be adjourned after June 28, 2021, absent extraordinary circumstances. THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED X DENIED GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE Dated: June 15, 2021
