| Lang v Wycoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08096 [55 AD3d 793] |
| October 21, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Tessa Lang et al., Respondents, v Wycoff Heights MedicalCenter et al., Defendants, and Sushama Karmarkar, Appellant. |
—[*1]
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice, etc., the defendant SushamaKarmarkar appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cullen, J.), entered July 11,2007, which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar asasserted against her for lack of personal jurisdiction, with leave to renew upon the completion ofdiscovery.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the appellant's motion pursuant toCPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personaljurisdiction is granted.
Where a defendant moves to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) on the groundof lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff "need only make a prima facie showing" that such jurisdictionexists (Cornely v Dynamic HVAC Supply,LLC, 44 AD3d 986 [2007]; seeAlden Personnel, Inc. v David, 38 AD3d 697, 698 [2007]; Opticare Acquisition Corp. v Castillo, 25AD3d 238, 243 [2005]; see also Ingraham v Carroll, 90 NY2d 592, 597-599 [1997]).Here, the plaintiffs, who contended that the Supreme Court could exercise long-arm jurisdiction overthe appellant pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (3), failed to make such a showing (see O'Brien vHackensack Univ. Med. Ctr., 305 AD2d 199, 201-202 [2003]; Carte v Parkoff, 152AD2d 615, 616 [1989]; Hermann v Sharon Hosp., 135 AD2d 682, 683 [1987]).Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to establish that further discovery was warranted with respect to thatissue (see CPLR 3211 [d]; Roldan v Dexter Folder Co., 178 AD2d 589, 590[1991]). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court should have granted the appellant's motion.Fisher, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.