| Vaichunas v Tonyes |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03159 [61 AD3d 850] |
| April 21, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Alicia Vaichunas, Appellant, v Donald Tonyes,Respondent. |
—[*1] Ahmuty, Demers & McManus, Albertson, N.Y. (Brendan T. Fitzpatrick of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), entered March 13, 2008, which granted thedefendant's, in effect, renewed motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaintfor lack of personal jurisdiction.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff was injured as she exited a jitney bus operated by the defendant, a non-NewYork domiciliary, in Atlantic City, New Jersey. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, neither thefact that she is a New York resident (see Fantis Foods v Standard Importing Co., 49NY2d 317, 326 [1980]), nor the fact that she sought and obtained medical treatment in NewYork, provided a basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Pursuant tothe portion of the New York long-arm statute relied upon by the plaintiff, CPLR 302 (a) (3),personal jurisdiction over a nondomiciliary may be exercised when the defendant, inter alia,"commits a tortious act without the state causing injury to person or property within the state.""The situs of the injury is the location of the original event which caused the injury, not thelocation where the resultant damages are subsequently felt by the plaintiff (see, McGowan vSmith, 52 NY2d 268, 273-274)" (Hermann v Sharon Hosp., 135 AD2d 682, 683[1987]; see Lang v Wycoff Hgts. Med.Ctr., 55 AD3d 793 [2008]; Marie v Altshuler, 30 AD3d 271, 272-273 [2006]; Polansky vGelrod, 20 [*2]AD3d 663, 665 [2005]; Carte v Parkoff,152 AD2d 615, 616 [1989]).
Accordingly, we affirm the granting of the defendant's, in effect, renewed motion pursuant toCPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, albeit on a basisslightly different from that relied upon by the Supreme Court. The situs of the plaintiff's injurywas Atlantic City, New Jersey. Given that the injury occurred in New Jersey, and involved anondomiciliary, it was not necessary to consider whether the additional aspects of CPLR 302 (a)(3) (ii) were met (see Siegel, NY Prac § 88, at 164 [4th ed]).
In light of our determination, the plaintiff's remaining contention has been renderedacademic. Fisher, J.P., Miller, Angiolillo and Balkin, JJ., concur.