LaMarca v. Pak-More Manufacturing Co.
New York Court of Appeals
95 N.Y.2d 210, 735 N.E.2d 883, 713 N.Y.S.2d 304 (2000)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Paul LaMarca (plaintiff) worked for the Town of Niagara, New York. LaMarca was injured when he fell from a sanitation truck that allegedly was equipped with a defective loading device. Pak-More Manufacturing Company (Pak-More) (defendant), a Texas corporation with a manufacturing facility in Virginia, manufactured the loading device. Pak-More owned no property in New York and had no New York employees, but Pak-More had a New York distributor. Pak-More advertised nationally using a logo that said “Sanitation for the Nation.” Pak-More’s revenue for the year of the accident exceeded $18 million, more than $500,000 of which was attributable to New York. The invoice for the allegedly defective loading device—which Pak-More sold to its New York distributor—described the loading device as being equipped with a “New York Light Bar.” LaMarca sued Pak-More in New York state court, alleging negligence. Pak-More moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The supreme court dismissed the complaint, and the appellate division affirmed. LaMarca appealed, arguing that Pak-More was subject to personal jurisdiction in New York pursuant to New York’s long-arm statute, Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) § 302, and that subjecting Pak-More to jurisdiction in New York did not offend the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution because Pak-More had minimum contacts with New York and it would not be unreasonable for New York to assert jurisdiction over Pak-More.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rosenblatt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
