## Facts

- Paul LaMarca, a Town of Niagara employee, was injured in New York after falling from the riding platform of a sanitation truck equipped with a rear-loading device.
- LaMarca alleged the rear-loading device manufactured by Pak-Mor Mfg. Co. was defectively designed or manufactured and caused his injuries.
- Pak-Mor is incorporated in Texas and manufactured the equipment at facilities outside New York; it had no New York property, offices, phone listings, or employees.
- Pak-Mor used a New York distributor (Truckmobile Equipment Corp.) and a district representative to sell its products in New York.
- Pak-Mor generated substantial annual revenue from interstate commerce, including more than $500,000 in New York sales in the accident year.
- Pak-Mor sold the rear-loading device to its New York distributor, which sold the completed truck to the Town of Niagara.
- Pak-Mor’s invoice and final inspection documents indicated the unit was destined for Niagara, New York and referenced New York-specific equipment (“New York Light Bar”).
- The distributor picked up the truck in Virginia and delivered it to the Town of Niagara in New York.

## Issues

1. Whether CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii) authorizes New York long-arm jurisdiction over an out-of-state manufacturer whose product allegedly caused injury in New York.
2. Whether exercising personal jurisdiction over the manufacturer satisfies federal due process, including minimum contacts and fair play and substantial justice.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
- The court held CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii) was satisfied: the alleged tort occurred out of state, the injury occurred in New York, the manufacturer should reasonably have expected New York consequences, and it derived substantial revenue from interstate commerce.
- The court held due process was satisfied because the manufacturer purposefully directed sales into New York through distribution efforts and the specific product was intended for New York use.
- The court concluded jurisdiction in New York was fair given New York’s interest in in-state injuries, the plaintiff’s interest in local relief, and the manageable burden on an interstate seller.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii) permits jurisdiction over a nondomiciliary who commits a tortious act outside New York causing in-state injury when the defendant should reasonably expect in-state consequences and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce.
- “Reasonable expectation” requires more than a product’s mere foreseeability of ending up in New York; it is met where the defendant purposefully serves the New York market and can anticipate direct New York consequences.
- Minimum contacts exist when a manufacturer, through distribution and sales efforts, purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in New York and the litigation arises from those contacts.
- Jurisdiction must also be consistent with fair play and substantial justice, assessed by the burden on the defendant, the forum’s interest, the plaintiff’s interest in effective relief, and efficiency of resolution.

## Conclusion

New York courts may assert long-arm jurisdiction over an out-of-state manufacturer under CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii) when the manufacturer purposefully cultivated New York sales and the allegedly defective product was intended for New York use and caused injury in New York, and doing so accords with due process.


LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Mfg. Co., 95 N.Y.2d 210 (N.Y. 2000)