Iacovangelo v. Shepherd
New York Court of Appeals
5 N.Y.3d 184, 800 N.Y.S.2d 116, 833 N.E.2d 259 (2005)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Goldie Gilchrist, a New York resident, was seriously injured when a truck owned by David Shepherd and driven by Thomas Rouse (defendants) struck her while she was walking on a highway. Gilchrist died from her injuries several months later. The accident occurred in Georgia, and Shepherd and Rouse were Georgia residents. Frank Iacovangelo (plaintiff), the administrator of Gilchrist’s estate, sued Shepherd and Rouse in New York state court for their roles in Gilchrist’s death. On November 8, 2002, Shepherd and Rouse answered the complaint. The answer did not assert that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. Iacovangelo filed an amended complaint on November 14, to which Shepherd and Rouse responded with an amended answer on November 21. For the first time, Shepherd and Rouse challenged their susceptibility to personal jurisdiction in New York in their amended answer; Shepherd and Rouse subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 3211(a) on personal-jurisdiction grounds. Iacovangelo responded that Shepherd and Rouse waived the right to attack the court’s personal jurisdiction over them by not raising personal jurisdiction as a defense in their original answer. The supreme court granted the motion to dismiss, and the appellate division affirmed. Iacovangelo appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Smith, R.S., J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.