| Morgan v A Better Chance, Inc. |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 01355 [70 AD3d 481] |
| February 16, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Yasha Morgan, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian,Patricia Hunt, et al., Respondents, v A Better Chance, Inc., Defendant, and ABCGlastonbury, Inc., Appellant. |
—[*1] Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & De Cicco, New York (Brian J. Isaac of counsel), forrespondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary Ann Brigantti-Hughes, J.), entered on or aboutOctober 1, 2009, which denied defendant ABC Glastonbury, Inc.'s motion to dismiss thecomplaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or forum non conveniens, without prejudice torenewal upon presentation of evidence as to its contacts within the State of New York,unanimously affirmed, without costs.
While appellant was properly served pursuant to Not-For-Profit Corporation Law §307 (a) (see CPLR 311 [a] [1]), jurisdiction is established only if plaintiffs sustain theirburden of demonstrating long-arm jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (see Stewart vVolkswagen of Am., 81 NY2d 203, 207 [1993]).
ABC Glastonbury operates a boarding school in Glastonbury, Connecticut. The complaintalleges that the infant plaintiff was assaulted while a resident in a program operated by ABCGlastonbury and defendant A Better Chance, Inc. (Chance). Plaintiff submitted an application toChance in New York and was interviewed by Chance in New York. In moving to dismiss forlack of personal jurisdiction, ABC Glastonbury asserts that it is a nonprofit organization locatedin Connecticut and that it conducts no business within this state to warrant the imposition ofpersonal jurisdiction. ABC Glastonbury admitted, however, that it is one of 29 "CommunitySchool Programs" affiliated with Chance and that, through agreement, it works together withChance to accomplish their shared mission of offering young minority men of demonstratedability the opportunity to obtain a high quality education. Chance was the sole source of studentreferrals to ABC Glastonbury, and all but one of its residents were from New York.
The conduct of an agent may be attributed to the principal for jurisdictional purposes wherethe agent engaged in purposeful activities in this state in relation to the transaction at issue forthe benefit of and with the knowledge and consent of the principal and the principal exercisedsome control over the agent in the matter (see Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d460, [*2]467 [1988]). Plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence towarrant further discovery to determine whether Chance was an agent of ABC Glastonbury(see Amigo Foods Corp. v Marine Midland Bank-N.Y., 39 NY2d 391, 395 [1976];Edelman v Taittinger, S.A., 298 AD2d 301, 302 [2002]). Concur—Gonzalez, P.J.,Saxe, Moskowitz, Abdus-Salaam and RomÁn, JJ.