Key Takeaway
New York court case where out-of-state insurance company successfully challenged personal jurisdiction under Civil Court Act 404 long-arm statute requirements.
This article is part of our ongoing jurisdiction coverage, with 12 published articles analyzing jurisdiction issues across New York State. Attorney Jason Tenenbaum brings 24+ years of hands-on experience to this analysis, drawing from his work on more than 1,000 appeals, over 100,000 no-fault cases, and recovery of over $100 million for clients throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, and the Bronx. For personalized legal advice about how these principles apply to your specific situation, contact our Long Island office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation.
Understanding Personal Jurisdiction in No-Fault Insurance Litigation
Personal jurisdiction represents one of the most fundamental requirements for a court to exercise authority over a defendant. In New York no-fault insurance litigation, out-of-state insurance carriers frequently challenge jurisdiction under the Civil Court Act’s long-arm statute, particularly when they have minimal contacts with New York. The case of J.C. Healing Touch Rehab, P.C. v Access Gen. Ins. Co. exemplifies how courts rigorously analyze whether sufficient minimum contacts exist to justify exercising jurisdiction over non-resident corporate defendants.
The long-arm jurisdiction statute, codified at Civil Court Act § 404, permits New York courts to reach beyond state borders under specific circumstances. However, this jurisdictional reach is not unlimited. The statute requires that the defendant have engaged in specific acts within New York, such as transacting business, contracting to supply goods or services, committing a tortious act, or using or possessing real property within the City of New York. When insurance carriers maintain no physical presence, employees, or business operations within New York, establishing personal jurisdiction becomes particularly challenging for plaintiffs seeking to recover no-fault benefits.
This jurisdictional analysis becomes especially critical in the no-fault insurance context, where providers frequently pursue claims against out-of-state carriers. Understanding the procedural requirements and evidentiary burdens for establishing personal jurisdiction can mean the difference between a viable lawsuit and an immediate dismissal.
Case Background
J.C. Healing Touch Rehab, P.C. v Access Gen. Ins. Co., 2013 NY Slip Op 52086(U)(App Term 2d Dept. 2013)
“The litigation specialist alleged, among other things, that defendant maintained offices in Atlanta, Georgia and that defendant is not authorized to conduct business in New York. He further stated that defendant does not issue or deliver contracts of insurance to New York State residents or corporations authorized to do business in New York and has never had any employees either located in or working to solicit business in New York.”
“Here, defendant made a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction had not been obtained [*2]over it based on any of the acts set forth in the Civil Court’s long-arm jurisdiction statute (CCA 404 ). In order for plaintiff to prove that the Civil Court had obtained personal jurisdiction over defendant, a corporation which is not a resident of the City of New York, plaintiff was required to establish that defendant either transacted business, contracted to supply goods or services, committed a tortious act, or used or possessed any real property within the City of New York”
“The affirmation of plaintiff’s attorney offered in opposition to defendant’s motion failed to demonstrate that he possessed personal knowledge of the facts to show that some basis for jurisdiction existed.”
It is always strange when you conceptualize yourself, driving through a state where your insurance coverage has no force or effect. It is a scary proposition
Legal Analysis: The Burden of Proof in Jurisdictional Challenges
The Appellate Term’s decision in J.C. Healing Touch Rehab demonstrates the stringent requirements plaintiffs face when defending against jurisdictional challenges. The defendant insurance carrier made a prima facie showing through its litigation specialist’s affidavit, which established that the company maintained offices exclusively in Georgia, was not authorized to conduct business in New York, did not issue or deliver insurance contracts to New York residents or corporations, and never had employees located in or working to solicit business in New York.
Once the defendant made this prima facie showing of lack of jurisdiction, the burden shifted to the plaintiff to come forward with evidence demonstrating that personal jurisdiction existed under at least one of the Civil Court Act § 404 provisions. The critical deficiency in the plaintiff’s opposition was that their attorney’s affirmation lacked personal knowledge of facts establishing jurisdiction. Under New York procedural law, affirmations or affidavits submitted in opposition to motions must be based on personal knowledge, not speculation or conjecture. An attorney’s conclusory statements without factual support are insufficient to defeat a defendant’s jurisdictional challenge.
This case illustrates a common pitfall for no-fault plaintiffs: assuming that merely filing suit against an insurance carrier that provided coverage for a New York accident automatically confers jurisdiction. The court rejected any such automatic jurisdiction, requiring specific evidence that the defendant engaged in one of the enumerated activities under the long-arm statute within the City of New York.
Practical Implications for No-Fault Litigation
For healthcare providers and their attorneys pursuing no-fault claims, this decision underscores several critical practice points. First, before filing suit against an out-of-state insurance carrier, counsel should conduct preliminary investigation into the carrier’s contacts with New York. This investigation should determine whether the carrier is authorized to do business in New York, maintains any offices or employees in the state, or engages in regular business transactions within New York.
Second, when facing a jurisdictional challenge, plaintiffs must be prepared to submit competent evidence establishing minimum contacts. Speculation or attorney affirmations without personal knowledge will prove insufficient. Instead, plaintiffs should obtain affidavits from individuals with direct knowledge of the defendant’s business activities in New York, documentary evidence of the defendant’s business registration or licensing in New York, or other concrete proof of the defendant’s purposeful availment of New York’s jurisdiction.
The practical consequence of this ruling extends beyond individual cases. It highlights the vulnerability that policyholders may face when traveling outside their state of insurance coverage. As Jason Tenenbaum astutely observed, the notion of driving through a state where one’s insurance coverage may have “no force or effect” presents genuine concerns for interstate travelers. This jurisdictional issue may limit recovery options for providers treating accident victims covered by out-of-state carriers with no New York presence, potentially leaving some providers without effective legal recourse for unpaid no-fault benefits.
Related Articles
Legal Context
Why This Matters for Your Case
New York law is among the most complex and nuanced in the country, with distinct procedural rules, substantive doctrines, and court systems that differ significantly from other jurisdictions. The Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) governs every stage of civil litigation, from service of process through trial and appeal. The Appellate Division, Appellate Term, and Court of Appeals create a rich and ever-evolving body of case law that practitioners must follow.
Attorney Jason Tenenbaum has practiced across these areas for over 24 years, writing more than 1,000 appellate briefs and publishing over 2,353 legal articles that attorneys and clients rely on for guidance. The analysis in this article reflects real courtroom experience — from motion practice in Civil Court and Supreme Court to oral arguments before the Appellate Division — and a deep understanding of how New York courts actually apply the law in practice.
Keep Reading
More Jurisdiction Analysis
Place a call and your jurisdictional defense will fall
New York court ruling shows how defendants can waive jurisdictional defenses through conduct, even when challenging court jurisdiction years later.
Sep 25, 2020
The lack of value of a notice of appearance
New York's CPLR requires defendants to challenge personal jurisdiction within 60 days or risk waiver, even with protective language in notices of appearance.
Nov 3, 2019
Personal Jurisdiction in New York Insurance Cases: No-Fault Defense Guide
Master personal jurisdiction challenges in NY insurance cases. Expert analysis of out-of-state insurer defenses. Call 516-750-0595 for legal help.
Aug 18, 2019
Court approves of service in the court room
New York court clarifies that defendants can be served with legal papers even inside courtrooms, rejecting the misconception that courthouse appearances provide immunity from...
Nov 25, 2018
A 325(d) case outside the equity jurisdiction of supreme Court cannot be ruled upon by an Acting Supreme Court Justice
Acting Supreme Court Justice cannot rule on 325(d) case outside supreme court's equity jurisdiction - NY appellate decision on post-judgment retransfer authority
Feb 19, 2018
Jursidictional defect (it really isn’t)
New York appellate court clarifies that procedural defects rarely constitute true jurisdictional defects under CPLR 5015(a)(4), making judgment vacatur extremely difficult.
Nov 14, 2014Common Questions
Frequently Asked Questions
How is jurisdiction determined in New York civil cases?
New York has several court systems with different jurisdictional limits. Supreme Court has unlimited jurisdiction. Civil Court handles claims up to $25,000 in NYC, while District Courts handle claims up to $15,000 in Nassau and Suffolk counties. Small Claims Court handles claims up to $10,000.
What is personal jurisdiction and how is it established in New York?
Personal jurisdiction requires that the defendant has sufficient contacts with New York. Under CPLR 301, a defendant domiciled in NY is subject to jurisdiction. Under CPLR 302 (long-arm statute), jurisdiction exists if the claim arises from the defendant's business in NY, tortious act in NY, or ownership of NY property.
Can venue affect my no-fault or personal injury case?
Yes. Venue determines which county hears your case. Under CPLR 503, venue is typically proper in the county where a party resides. For no-fault cases, this often means the county where the provider or insurer is located. Strategic venue selection can impact the outcome.
Was this article helpful?
About the Author
Jason Tenenbaum, Esq.
Jason Tenenbaum is the founding attorney of the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C., headquartered at 326 Walt Whitman Road, Suite C, Huntington Station, New York 11746. With over 24 years of experience since founding the firm in 2002, Jason has written more than 1,000 appeals, handled over 100,000 no-fault insurance cases, and recovered over $100 million for clients across Long Island, Nassau County, Suffolk County, Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island. He is one of the few attorneys in the state who both writes his own appellate briefs and tries his own cases.
Jason is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey, Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Michigan state courts, as well as multiple federal courts. His 2,353+ published legal articles analyzing New York case law, procedural developments, and litigation strategy make him one of the most prolific legal commentators in the state. He earned his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University College of Law.
Disclaimer: This article is published by the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum, P.C. for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, and no attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this content. The legal principles discussed may not apply to your specific situation, and the law may have changed since this article was last updated.
New York law varies by jurisdiction — court decisions in one Appellate Division department may not be followed in another, and local court rules in Nassau County Supreme Court differ from those in Suffolk County Supreme Court, Kings County Civil Court, or Queens County Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, Second Department (which covers Long Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island) and the Appellate Term (which hears appeals from lower courts) each have distinct procedural requirements and precedents that affect litigation strategy.
If you need legal help with a jurisdiction matter, contact our office at (516) 750-0595 for a free consultation. We serve clients throughout Long Island (Huntington, Babylon, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton), Nassau County (Hempstead, Garden City, Mineola, Great Neck, Manhasset, Freeport, Long Beach, Rockville Centre, Valley Stream, Westbury, Hicksville, Massapequa), Suffolk County (Hauppauge, Deer Park, Bay Shore, Central Islip, Patchogue, Brentwood), Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, Staten Island, and Westchester County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
