Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219 (a), of the papers considered in the review of this Motion Papers Numbered Notice of Motion and Affidavits Annexed 1 Order to Show Cause Answering Affidavits Replying Affidavits Exhibits Supplemental Affidavit Cross-motion 2 DECISION/ORDER Upon the foregoing papers, defendant’s motion seeking dismissal for lack of personal matter jurisdiction and plaintiff’s cross-motion to defendants’ motion, are decided as follows: Plaintiff, a resident of Flushing, New York, in the County of Queens had commenced an action against defendant, South Shore Autoplex dba South Shore Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram (hereinafter referred to as South Shore), which maintains a service facility in Inwood, New York, in the County of Nassau. The original summons, filed on August 25, 2022, alleges various causes of action, including damages to plaintiff’s automobile, and repairs and claimed damages of $17,763.00. The plaintiff had requested an inquest. Defendant had brought an order to show cause to vacate its default. Subsequently, Defendant filed an answer dated July 3, 2023. Plaintiff had filed a motion seeking to amend the complaint and the parties stipulated that plaintiff could file an amended complaint and defendant could file an amended answer. Plaintiff served a verified amended complaint, and filed it with the Court on February 20, 2024, which increased the claimed damages to $50,000.00. Defendant served a verified answer on February 26, 2024. One of the affirmative defenses include lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant submits an affidavit by Benjamin Canarick, the Executor Operations Manager of South Shore. He states that the plaintiff brought his motor vehicle to Nassau County for diagnosis and repair. He states that all of the transactions and business with the plaintiff occurred in Nassau County, and none of the transactions occurred in New York City. Defendant requests that the complaint be dismissed because the Court does not have personal jurisdiction. The Court will treat this request as a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Civil Court Act §404 permits the Civil Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident of New York City, if the defendant transacts any business in New York City, or contracts to supply goods or services in New York City; or commits a tortuous act within the City of New York; or owns, uses, or possesses any real property in New York City. Plaintiff’s cross-motion, which in essence is opposition to defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiff points to emails, text messages, and telephone calls between Flushing and Inwood. Plaintiff also points to an automobile part which he ordered from the defendant, which was sent to his residence in Queens County. Plaintiff also contains a copy of a summons and complaint, South Shore Autoplex v. Thomas Desolan, Suffolk County Supreme Court, in 2022. The complaint states Nassau County is South Shore’s principal place of business, but also states “South Shore Autoplex conducts business in Nassau County as well as other counties of New York, and other States.” The Court notes that Nassau County and Queens County are adjoining counties. More importantly, defendant South Shore sent a targeted solicitation to plaintiff in Flushing, which has an appearance of a check for $11,515.00, and specifically refers to a possible trade in offer for plaintiff’s 2012 Dodge Charger, which appears to be the vehicle in controversy. Defendant in essence has crossed the Nassau/Queens border to plaintiff’s residence to entice him to travel to Nassau County, the only place in the world where this document appearing as a check, has any value. The Court finds that part of the transactions between the parties occurred in Queens County. Please see J.K. Rosenberg, Inc. v. Greenfield, 44 Misc. 2d 600 (App Term, 1st Dept. 1964); Woodhaven Motor Sales Inc. v. F&E Granite Memorials, Inc. 46 Misc. 2d 266 (Dist. Ct., Nassau Co. 1965); Rey v. TVS Automotive, Inc. 128 Misc. 2d 1015 (Civil Court, Queens Co. 1985); Neurological Services, P.C. v. State-Wide Insurance Company, 183 Misc. 2d 343 (Civil Ct. Queens Co. 1999); and Reich v. Pines Hotel, 68 Misc. 2d 1001 (Civil Ct. Queens Co., 1972). Accordingly, the Court will not grant defendant, South Shore’s Motion to dismiss. The Court also notes that there was way too much emotion displayed at oral argument, and hopefully the parties will be able to resolve the dispute without rancor, and without a trial. Defendant’s motion seeking dismissal is denied. This constitutes the decision and order of the Court. Dated: June 20, 2024
