New York

In Fischbarg v. Doucet, the New York Court of Appeals augments its case law interpreting what constitutes the transaction of business in New York under CPLR 302(a)(1) for purposes of this state's long-arm jurisdiction statute.  The crux of the decision is that courts should look to the quality of an out-of-state party's contacts with New York, not the quantity, in determining whether the party's activities justify a New York court's juridiction over that party.  Also, the Court dispels the myth that an out-of-state party cannot be hauled into New York courts where it has not physically entered the state.

The appeal concerns a dispute over fees between the plaintiff (a New York attorney who performed all his work in the underlying matter in New York) and the defendants (a California individual and corporation).  The defendants retained the New York attorney through a telephone call and subsequent letter, and frequently communicated with the attorney through email and telephone conversations. The dispute transpired entirely in Oregon.

The Court held that the defendants' actions in seeking out this New York attorney and engaging in frequent telephone conversations was of a quality that constituted transacting business under New York's long-arm statute.

Fischbarg provides one more example to flesh out the boundaries of CPLR 302(a)(1).