## Facts

- Frank Merigone held a promissory note executed in connection with a New York corporation, Seaboard Capital Corp.
- Bernard Shwidock, domiciled in New Jersey, worked in New York City virtually every business day.
- Shwidock signed the note in New York both as president of the corporate maker and as an individual guarantor.
- In a prior action on the same note, a New York court dismissed for improper service on Shwidock.
- In this action, Shwidock was personally served in New York while attending a court hearing related to the earlier case involving the same note.
- Shwidock moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for allegedly improper service based on his courthouse attendance.

## Issues

1. Whether New York courts have personal jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1) over a non-domiciliary who regularly works in New York and executed in New York a promissory note and personal guaranty substantially connected to New York, where the claim arises from that transaction.
2. Whether personal service on the non-domiciliary in New York while he was attending a court hearing in a related matter is invalid due to an asserted immunity from service.

## Decision

- The court denied Shwidock’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held New York had personal jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1) because Shwidock transacted business in New York and the action on the note arose from that New York transaction.
- The court held service in New York was valid and not barred by any immunity associated with his presence at the courthouse.

## Legal Principles

- Under CPLR 302(a)(1), a non-domiciliary is subject to New York jurisdiction when he transacts business in New York and the cause of action arises from that business activity.
- Execution in New York of a note and personal guaranty tied to a New York corporation supports a finding of purposeful New York business activity and a sufficient nexus to the claim.
- A nonresident defendant with continuous, regular New York business contacts is not shielded from personal service merely because service occurs while attending a New York court proceeding, particularly when the dispute is connected to his New York-based activities.

## Conclusion

Because the guarantor regularly conducted business in New York and executed the note and guaranty in New York, the court found long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1), and it upheld personal service made in New York during his courthouse attendance; the action on the promissory note was permitted to proceed.


Merigone v. Seaboard Cap. Corp., 85 Misc. 2d 965, 381 N.Y.S.2d 749 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1976)