From our private database of 47,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

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

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Rosenblatt, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
The procedural disposition (e.g., reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 965,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.
Unlock this case brief Read our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.
Learn about our approach Read more about Quimbee

Here's why 965,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,007 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.
AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Here's why 965,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
47,500 briefs - keyed to 1,007 casebooks
Uniform format for every case brief
Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
Top-notch customer support