N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 3211

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to the court’s jurisdiction.

HALAS, SHAWN v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC. · filed 2013-04-26(a)(8)

... in opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8), [plaintiff] need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant . . . was subject to the personal jurisdiction of . . . Supreme Court’ ” (Constantine v Stella Maris Ins. Co., Ltd., 97 AD3d 1129, 1130). We conclude that plaintiff met that burden.

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction in opposition, although the ultimate burden remains with the party asserting jurisdiction.

Halas v. Dick's Sporting Goods · filed 2013-04-26(a)(8)

Although “ ‘the ultimate burden of proof rests with the party asserting jurisdiction, ... in opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8), [plaintiff] need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant . . . was subject to the personal jurisdiction of . . . Supreme Court’ ” (Constantine v Stella Maris Ins. Co., Ltd., 97 AD3d 1129, 1130 [2012]). We conclude that plaintiff met that burden.

Section 3211(e)'s 60-day deadline does not waive a personal jurisdiction defense when no viable action is pending.

New York Medical Rehab., P.C. v. Travelers Insurance · filed 2013-06-17(e)

The question remains, however, whether, under the circumstances presented, defendant was required, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (e), to move to dismiss the “action” on that ground within 60 days of serving its answer, or risk waiver of that defense. Defendant failed to make such a motion. However, as there was no viable pending action, defendant cannot be deemed to have waived its defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by failing to make a motion to dismiss this “action.”

A defendant who appears and defends without challenging service of process in the answer waives that objection and cannot raise it on appeal.

Quinlan v. Doe · filed 2013-06-27(a)(8); (e)

Initially, as defendants failed to challenge the propriety or adequacy of the service of process by publication in their answer, and instead appeared and defended the action, the issue is waived and they are now precluded from raising it on appeal (see CPLR 3211 [a] [8]; [e]; Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d 714, 720-722 [1997]; Page v Marusich, 30 AD3d 871, 873 [2006]).

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, and a hearing on proper service may be required when service is disputed.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Final Touch Interiors, LLC · filed 2013-12-18(a)(8)

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a hearing to determine whether the appellants were properly served with process, and thereafter a new determination of that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against the appellants upon their failure to timely appear or answer the complaint, and that branch of the appellants’ cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. ... Therefore, a hearing is warranted on the issue of proper service.

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction when the plaintiff fails to prove proper service of process.

Washington Mutual Bank v. Holt · filed 2014-01-22(a)(8)

Viewing the evidence in its totality, the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over Holt was obtained by proper service of process (see Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v Tsoukas, 303 AD2d 343 [2003]).

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction when the plaintiff fails to prove proper service of process.

HSBC Bank USA v. Hamilton · filed 2014-04-02(a)(8)

Viewing the evidence in its totality, the plaintiff failed to meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over the appellant was obtained by proper service of process (see Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v Tsoukas, 303 AD2d 343 [2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the appellant’s motion which were pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (4) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered against her and pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personal jurisdiction.

A defendant who raises lack of personal jurisdiction in the answer and moves under CPLR 3211(a)(8) does not waive that defense by participating in discovery.

Edwards, Angell, Palmer & Dodge, LLP v. Gerschman · filed 2014-04-16(a)(8)

Since the defendant both asserted this affirmative defense in his answer and moved pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint on this ground, his participation in discovery did not result in the waiver of this defense (see CPLR 320 [b]; Gager v White, 53 NY2d 475, 487-488 [1981]; Williams v Uptown Collision, 243 AD2d 467, 467 [1997]; Beris v Miller, 128 AD2d 822, 823 [1987]; Calloway v National Servs. Indus., 93 AD2d 734, 734-735 [1983], affd 60 NY2d 906 [1983]; see also Matter of Maya Assur. Co. v Hussain, 87 AD3d 536, 536 [2011]).

A defendant who moves to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(8) does not waive a personal jurisdiction objection through an alleged informal appearance.

Castillo v. JFK Medport, Inc. · filed 2014-04-23(a)(8)

Since the defendants moved to dismiss in accordance with CPLR 3211, any alleged informal appearance by the defendants did not constitute a waiver of the jurisdictional objection.

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving a basis for jurisdiction.

Waggaman v. Arauzo · filed 2014-05-07(a)(8)

Where a motion is made to dismiss an action for lack of personal jurisdiction, it is the plaintiff who bears the ultimate burden of proving a basis for such jurisdiction (see Paterno v Laser Spine Inst., 112 AD3d 34 [2013]).

To defeat a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to the court’s jurisdiction.

Carrs v. Avco Corp. Ex Rel. Lycoming Engines · filed 2015-01-21(a)(8)

However, to defeat a CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff need only establish, prima facie, that the defendant was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (see Weitz v Weitz, 85 AD3d 1153 [2011]; Cornely v Dynamic HVAC Supply, LLC, 44 AD3d 986 [2007]; Brandt v Toraby, 273 AD2d 429 [2000]).

To defeat a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, although the ultimate burden of proof remains with the plaintiff.

Whitcraft v. Runyon · filed 2014-12-10(a)(8)

Although the ultimate burden of proof regarding personal jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff, to defeat a CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss a complaint, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court (see Weitz v Weitz, 85 AD3d 1153 [2011]; Cornely v Dynamic HVAC Supply, LLC, 44 AD3d 986 [2007]).

A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction may be denied when a process server’s affidavit establishes proper service and the defendant’s affidavit fails to rebut it.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Losco · filed 2015-02-11(a)(8)

The appellant’s affidavit was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service created by the process server’s affidavit ... Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was, in effect, for leave to enter a default judgment against the appellant upon his failure to timely appear or answer the complaint, and denied the appellant’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.

CPLR 3211(a)(8) warrants dismissal when service fails to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Ciafone v. Queens Center for Rehabilitation & Residential Healthcare · filed 2015-03-04(a)(8)

Jurisdiction over Queens Center was not obtained by delivery of the summons and complaint to the Secretary of State, because the summons and complaint misstated Queens Center’s name ... Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against Queens Center was warranted pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8).

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the court accepts the complaint's allegations as true and draws inferences in the plaintiff's favor.

Wilson v. Dantas · filed 2015-04-14(a)(8)

Accepting as true the allegation that all three agreements were drafted in New York by Citibank's lawyers, and drawing inferences in the plaintiff's favor, as we must on a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(8) ( see Whitcraft v Runyon , 123 AD3d 811 [2d Dept 2014]), we [*4]must infer that defendants engaged in negotiations with Citibank in New York so that those agreements could be drafted; it is hardly believable that defendants would have attended a meeting in New York in December 1997 to execute these complex contracts without having negotiated their terms.

Re-service during a pending motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction can obviate the jurisdictional objection.

Bank of America, National Ass'n v. Valentino · filed 2015-04-15(a)(8)

In opposition to the appellant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff established that it re-served the appellant during the pendency of the motion. The plaintiffs re-service of the summons and complaint during the pendency of the appellant’s motion effectively obviated the appellant’s jurisdictional objection to the action against him (see IBJ Schroder Bank & Trust Co. v Zaitz, 170 AD2d 579 [1991]; Sirota v Kloogman, 140 AD2d 426, 427 [1988]; Helfand v Cohen, 110 AD2d 751 [1985]).

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, specific sworn facts rebutting an affidavit of service require a hearing on whether service was proper.

American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. v. Gbede · filed 2015-04-22(a)(8)

In opposition, however, the defendant’s affidavit denying receipt of those papers, and his averment that he was at his place of employment in New York County at the time of the alleged service, were sufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service. ... Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing to determine whether the appellant was properly served with process pursuant to CPLR 308 (1), and, thereafter, a new determination of the motion and the cross motion.

Section 3211(e)’s 60-day deadline does not waive a preserved personal-jurisdiction defense when no viable action was pending.

Richard A. Hellander, M.D., P.C. v. Metlife Auto & Home Insurance · filed 2015-05-06(e)

Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, “as there was no viable pending action, defendant cannot be deemed to have waived its defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by failing to make a motion to dismiss this ‘action’ ” (id.) within 60 days of the service of its answer, in accordance with CPLR 3211 (e).

A defendant who serves a notice of appearance does not waive a personal jurisdiction objection when she raises it in a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (a) (8).

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Gordon · filed 2015-06-10(a)(8)

Since the defendant moved to dismiss, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8), her service of the notice of appearance did not constitute a waiver of the jurisdictional objection (see Frederic v Israel, 104 AD3d at 910).

A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction fails when the defendant does not submit a sworn denial of receipt of process to rebut the presumption of proper service.

Gershon v. Cunningham · filed 2016-01-20(a)(8)

The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The appellant failed to submit a sworn denial of receipt of process to rebut the presumption of proper service (see JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Todd, 125 AD3d 933 [2015]).

To defeat a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under section 3211(a)(8), the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to the court’s jurisdiction.

Jacobs v. 201 Stephenson Corp. · filed 2016-04-06(a)(8)

“Although the ultimate burden of proof regarding personal ... jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff, to defeat a CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss a complaint, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court”

A motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction fails when the defendant merely denies receiving the summons and complaint and does not rebut the presumption of proper service.

Bank of New York Mellon Ex Rel. CIT Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-1 v. Marolda · filed 2016-05-11(a)(8)

Claudis is not entitled, however, to dismissal of the second foreclosure action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8). ... The mere denial of receipt of the summons and complaint, without more, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service created by the service upon the Secretary of State (see Drillman v Marsam Realty 13th Ave., LLC, 129 AD3d 903 [2015]; Lange v Fox Run Homeowners Assn., Inc., 127 AD3d 823, 824 [2015]).

An objection to personal jurisdiction asserted in a pre-answer motion under CPLR 3211(a)(8) preserves that objection despite the defendant’s appearance.

Brown v. Sanders · filed 2016-09-14(a)(8)

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over the defendants Brauner Baron Rosenweig and Klein and David Brauner (hereinafter together the Brauner defendants) when they first appeared by pre-answer motion in this action approximately one year after the action was commenced, since an objection to personal jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) was asserted in their motion (see CPLR 320 [b]; 3211 [e]; Skyline Agency v Coppotelli, Inc., 117 AD2d 135, 140 [1986]; cf. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP v Albert, 78 AD3d 983, 984 [2010]).

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal of a complaint against a defendant when the court lacks personal jurisdiction over that defendant.

Fernandez v. DaimlerChrysler, A.G. · filed 2016-10-12(a)(8)

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted Daimler’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it based on lack of personal jurisdiction, and, in effect, properly denied the plaintiff’s request to compel further discovery and for sanctions.

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists when opposing the motion.

Hopstein v. Cohen · filed 2016-10-19(a)(8)

In opposing a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, “a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that such jurisdiction exists” (Lang v Wycoff Hgts. Med. Ctr., 55 AD3d 793, 794 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

To defeat a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to the court’s jurisdiction.

Bloomgarden v. Lanza · filed 2016-10-19(a)(8)

“Although the ultimate burden of proof regarding personal jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff, to defeat a CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss a complaint, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court” ... Here, accepting as true the allegations set forth in the complaint and in the opposition to the motion, and according the plaintiffs the benefit of every favorable inference ... we find that the plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing that the defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction in New York.

A plaintiff opposing dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction must make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to the court’s jurisdiction.

Chen v. Lu · filed 2016-11-09(a)(8)

Here, in opposing dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing that the defendant was domiciled in New York at the time the action was commenced in July 2013.

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving a basis for jurisdiction.

America/International 1994 Venture v. Mau · filed 2016-11-23(a)(8)

Upon a CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, it is the plaintiff who bears the “ ‘ultimate burden of proof’ ” to establish a basis for such jurisdiction (Daniel B. Katz & Assoc. Corp. v Midland Rushmore, LLC, 90 AD3d 977, 978 [2011], quoting Comely v Dynamic HVAC Supply, LLC, 44 AD3d 986, 986 [2007]).

A specific, factually detailed sworn denial can rebut the presumption of valid service established by a process server’s affidavit.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Tobing · filed 2016-12-28(a)(8)

Here, Tobing rebutted the presumption of valid service arising from the process server’s affidavit by submitting his own specific, factually detailed, sworn affidavit in which he denied residing at the subject address in Staten Island and averred that he had resided at a different address in Staten Island at all relevant times.

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must present sufficient evidence through affidavits and relevant documents to demonstrate jurisdiction.

Coast to Coast Energy, Inc. v. Gasarch · filed 2017-01-26(a)(8)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), the plaintiff has the burden of presenting sufficient evidence, through affidavits and relevant documents, to demonstrate jurisdiction ( see Fischbarg v Doucet , 9 NY3d 375, 381 n5 [2007]; Copp v Ramirez , 62 AD3d 23, 28 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 711 [2009]).

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction when the defendants were not properly served.

Krasa v. Dial 7 Car & Limousine Service, Inc. · filed 2017-02-01(a)(8)

The motion of the defendants Dial 7 Car & Limousine Service, Inc., and Eitan Chandally (hereinafter together the defendants) pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been granted.

Proper service of the summons and complaint while a CPLR 3211(a)(8) motion is pending can obviate the defendant’s personal-jurisdiction objection.

Rosenberg v. Trazzera · filed 2017-02-22(a)(8)

The service of the summons and complaint during the pendency of Trazzera’s cross motion effectively obviated his jurisdictional objection to the action against him, and constituted prima facie evidence of proper service pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) (see Bank of Am., N.A. v Valentino, 127 AD3d 904, 904 [2015]). ... Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting those branches of Trazzera’s cross motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction and to cancel the notice of pendency against his real property.

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction when service on the defendant was defective.

Hobbins v. North Star Orthopedics, PLLC · filed 2017-03-08(a)(8)

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction, and should have denied the plaintiff’s motion pursuant to CPLR 306-b for an extension of time to serve the defendant.

A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction requires a hearing when the defendant’s evidence raises a factual dispute about proper service.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Latif · filed 2017-03-22(a)(8)

Under the circumstances of this case, there must be a hearing on the issue of whether Latif was properly served ... including whether the plaintiff complied with the “due diligence” requirement of CPLR 308 (4).

On a CPLR 3211(a)(8) motion challenging service, specific evidence rebutting the process server’s affidavit shifts the burden to the plaintiff to establish personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. DeCesare · filed 2017-03-01(a)(8)

The detailed and specific evidence submitted by DeCesare in support of her motion was sufficient to rebut the allegations contained in the process server’s affidavit of service, thereby shifting the burden of proof to the plaintiff to establish jurisdiction at a hearing by a preponderance of the evidence (see Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Chaplin, 65 AD3d 588, 589 [2009]; Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v Tsoukas, 303 AD2d 343, 344 [2003]).

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(8), the plaintiff must present sufficient evidence through affidavits and relevant documents to demonstrate personal jurisdiction.

Coast to Coast Energy, Inc. v. Gasarch · filed 2017-04-13(a)(8)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), the plaintiff has the burden of presenting sufficient evidence, through affidavits and relevant documents, to demonstrate jurisdiction ( see Fischbarg v Doucet , 9 NY3d 375, 381 n5 [2007]; Copp v Ramirez , 62 AD3d 23, 28 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 711 [2009]).

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal when the plaintiff fails to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Francis v. Hogan · filed 2017-04-21(a)(8)

Civil Court correctly dismissed the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), based on plaintiff's failure to establish that the Alabama-domiciled defendant engaged in any purposeful acts in New York City sufficient to confer jurisdiction under Civil Court's long-arm statute ( see CCA § 404[a]; Rodriguez v Universal Prod. Concepts, Inc ., 33 Misc 3d 139 [A], 2011 NY Slip Op 52106[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2011]).

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of establishing a basis for jurisdiction.

Nick v. Schneider · filed 2017-05-31(a)(8)

“Upon a CPLR 3211 (a) (8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, it is the plaintiff who bears the ultimate burden of proof to establish a basis for such jurisdiction” (America/Intl. 1994 Venture v Mau, 146 AD3d 40, 51 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal of a complaint against a defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ausch v. Sutton · filed 2017-06-14(a)(8)

The Supreme Court should have granted that branch of Lisani’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.

To defeat a pre-answer motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 3211(a)(8), a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to the court’s jurisdiction.

Leuthner v. Homewood Suites Ex Rel. Hilton · filed 2017-06-28(a)(8)

However, to defeat a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8), the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court (see Jacobs v 201 Stephenson Corp., 138 AD3d 693, 693-694 [2016]; Whitcraft v Runyon, 123 AD3d 811, 812 [2014]; Daniel B. Katz & Assoc. Corp. v Midland Rushmore, LLC, 90 AD3d at 978; Comely v Dynamic HVAC Supply, LLC, 44 AD3d at 986).

A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction requires a hearing when specific facts rebut the process server’s affidavit of service.

Fuentes v. Espinal · filed 2017-08-02(a)(8)

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) and 306-b without conducting a hearing.

To oppose a pre-answer motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 3211(a)(8), a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.

Katherine Sales & Sourcing, Inc. v. Fiorella · filed 2017-09-08(a)(8)

To successfully oppose a pre-answer motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8), the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction exists ( Bill-Jay Mach. Tool Corp. v Koster Indus., Inc. , 29 AD3d 504, 505).

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction when service of process is insufficient.

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Twersky · filed 2017-09-13(a)(8)

Here, while the plaintiff demonstrated by a fair preponderance of the evidence that it satisfied the first prong of CPLR 308 (2) by serving process upon a person of suitable age and discretion at the subject property, it failed to establish that it mailed copies of the summons and complaint to the defendant’s last known residence or actual place of business (see Washington Mut. Bank v Murphy, 127 AD3d at 1175). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, but dismissal is unwarranted when the defendant fails to rebut the process server’s affidavit of service.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Decesare · filed 2017-10-04(a)(8)

Accordingly, a hearing to determine the validity of service of process was not warranted under the circumstances of this case {see id.), and the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personal jurisdiction.

CPLR 3211 (a) (8) does not support dismissal for failure to serve an amended complaint with identical allegations when service of the original complaint established personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Mangar v. Happy Kitchen Inc. · filed 2017-09-15(a)(8)

Defendant fails to articulate any reason, in law or in common sense, as to why the filing of an amended complaint—which defendant claims it did not even know existed, and which altered the claims against defendant in no way—should nullify the personal jurisdiction over defendant obtained through plaintiff’s proper service of the initial complaint. Based upon the foregoing, the court finds that defendant’s motion to dismiss is not supported by existing law, and the court further finds that the interests of justice warrant an extension of plaintiffs’ time to serve the amended summons and amended verified complaint upon defendant 191 Jamaica, Inc.

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal when the plaintiff fails to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Vaughn v. MGM Resorts Intl. · filed 2017-10-13(a)(8)

Upon our review of the record, we find that the complaint should have been dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), based on plaintiff's failure to establish that the New Jersey-domiciled defendant engaged in any purposeful acts in New York City sufficient to confer jurisdiction under Civil Court's long-arm statute ( see CCA § 404[a]).

Under CPLR 3211(a)(8), a complaint must be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction when the plaintiff fails to show that the requirements for service of process were met.

Josephs v. AACT Fast Collections Services, Inc. · filed 2017-11-29(a)(8)

Since the plaintiffs failed to submit any evidence that the requirements for service of process were met with respect to Lubarsky and Tarnovsky, the court should have directed the dismissal of the amended complaint insofar as asserted against those defendants pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8).

Section 3211(a)(8) permits a defendant to move to dismiss a claim for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Mileski v. MSC Indus. Direct Co., Inc. · filed 2018-03-07(a)(8)

Moreover, upon converting that branch of Buffalo's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the third-party complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction into a summary judgment motion, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion on the ground that MSC raised triable issues of fact as to whether MSC could assert personal jurisdiction over Buffalo under CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii) and properly found that MSC was entitled to discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction ( see Venegas v Capric Clinic , 147 AD3d 457; cf. Okeke v Momah , 132 AD3d 648).

Section 3211(a)(8) allows dismissal of a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction when service is not properly established.

BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Carrasco · filed 2018-04-11(a)(8)

Here, the affidavit of the defendant Andres H. Carrasco, which was submitted in support of his motion, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him, set forth that he did not receive the pleadings, but did not deny the specific facts contained in the process server's affidavit ( see U.S. Bank N.A. v Telford , 153 AD3d 881, 882; Bank of N.Y. v Samuels , 107 AD3d 653, 654; Christiana Bank & Trust Co. v Eichler , 94 AD3d 1170, 1171). Carrasco's conclusory assertion was inadequate to rebut the presumption of proper service ( see U.S. Bank, N.A. v Peralta , 142 AD3d 988, 988-989; Bank of N.Y. v Espejo , 92 AD3d 707, 708). Accordingly, a hearing to determine the validity of service of process was not warranted under the circumstances of this case, the order directing that hearing must be reversed, and the order made after the hearing must be vacated ( see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Decesare , 154 AD3d 717; Washington Mut. Bank v Huggins , 140 AD3d 858, 859).

Section 3211(a)(8) permits a defendant to seek dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Faruk v. Dawn · filed 2018-06-13(a)(8)

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted.

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, but dismissal is unwarranted when the plaintiff submits an affidavit establishing service under CPLR 308(2).

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Rosario · filed 2018-09-12(a)(8)

However, in opposition to the cross motion, the plaintiff submitted an affidavit of service wherein the process server attested that three days after serving a person of suitable age and discretion at Rosario's place of business, he served the summons and complaint by mail ( see CPLR 308[2]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of cross motion of Rosario and Lopez which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, but the defense is waived if not raised in a pre-answer motion or answer.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Selig · filed 2018-10-17(a)(8)

We agree with the Supreme Court's denial of that branch of the defendant's motion, brought by order to show cause, which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personal jurisdiction. The defendant waived the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by failing to raise it in a pre-answer motion to dismiss or in her answer ( see CPLR 320[a]; U.S. Bank N.A. v Pepe , 161 AD3d 811; Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v Zimmerman , 157 AD3d 846, 847; MidFirst Bank v Ajala , 146 AD3d 875, 875; American Home Mtge. Servicing, Inc. v Arklis , 150 AD3d 1180, 1181; Generation Mtge. Co. v Medina , 138 AD3d 688, 689; Putnam County Sav. Bank v Fishel , 110 AD3d 779, 779).

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the plaintiff need only make a sufficient start by using pleadings, affidavits, and other suitable documentation.

Avilon Auto. Group v. Leontiev · filed 2019-01-03(a)(8)

Where a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under CPLR 3211(a)(8), a plaintiff need not present definitive proof of personal jurisdiction, but only make a "sufficient start" in demonstrating such jurisdiction by reference to pleadings, affidavits, and other suitable documentation ( American BankNote Corp. v Daniele , 45 AD3d 338, 340 [1st Dept 2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, while CPLR 3211(d) permits further discovery when facts essential to justify opposition may exist.

Archer-Vail v. LHV Precast Inc. · filed 2019-01-17(a)(8), (d)

However, in opposing Spillman's motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8), plaintiff did not have the burden of "making a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction; rather, plaintiff need only demonstrate that it made a 'sufficient start' to warrant further discovery, which, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (d), [was] within Supreme Court's discretion to grant" ( Bunkoff Gen. Contrs. v State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. , 296 AD2d 699, 700 [2002], quoting Peterson v Spartan Indus. , 33 NY2d 463, 467 [1974]; see Urfirer v SB Bldrs., LLC , 95 AD3d at 1618).

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, and a process server's affidavit is prima facie evidence of proper service unless sufficiently refuted.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Galloway · filed 2019-02-06(a)(8)

The process server's affidavit constituted prima facie evidence of proper service, and the defendant's allegations were insufficient to refute the content of the process server's affidavit.

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal of a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Deb v. Hayut · filed 2019-04-10(a)(8)

The burden of proving that personal jurisdiction was acquired over a defendant rests with the plaintiff ( see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Decesare , 154 AD3d 717).

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal when the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Pravel, Inc. v. American Ind. Ins. Co. · filed 2019-04-26(a)(8)

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant's motion which sought to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) on the ground that the Civil Court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant. ... For the reasons stated in Pavlova v American Ind. Ins. Co. (60 Misc 3d 128 [A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50943[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is granted ( see also Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Basedow , 28 AD3d 766 [2006]; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Gutierrez-Guzman , 21 AD3d 489 [2005]).

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal when the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Gentlecare Ambulatory Anesthesia Servs. v. American Ind. Ins. Co. · filed 2019-04-26(a)(8)

In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Civil Court as denied defendant's motion which sought to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) on the ground that the Civil Court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant. For the reasons stated in Pavlova v American Ind. Ins. Co. (60 Misc 3d 128 [A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50943[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]), the order, insofar as appealed from, is reversed, and defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is granted ( see also Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Basedow , 28 AD3d 766 [2006]; Matter of Eagle Ins. Co. v Gutierrez-Guzman , 21 AD3d 489 [2005]).

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and allows resolution to be postponed when essential jurisdictional facts may exist but cannot yet be stated.

Qudsi v. Larios · filed 2019-06-12(a)(8)

Where, as here, a party opposes a CPLR 3211(a)(8) motion to dismiss on the ground that discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction is necessary, the party "need only demonstrate that facts may exist' whereby to defeat the motion" ( Peterson v Spartan Indus. , 33 NY2d 463, 466, quoting CPLR 3211[d]; see Amigo Foods Corp. v Marine Midland Bank-N.Y. , 39 NY2d 391, 395; Abad v Lorenzo , 163 AD3d 903, 904; Ying Jun Chen v Lei Shi , 19 AD3d 407, 407-408). If it appears that facts essential to justify the opposition may exist but cannot then be stated, a court may, in the exercise of its discretion, postpone resolution of the issue of personal jurisdiction ( see CPLR 3211[d]; Amigo Foods Corp. v Marine Midland Bank-N.Y. , 39 NY2d at 395; Peterson v Spartan Indus. , 33 NY2d at 467; Abad v Lorenzo , 163 AD3d at 904; Expert Sewer & Drain, LLC v New England Mun. Equip. Co., Inc. , 106 AD3d 775, 776).

CPLR 3211(a)(8) authorizes dismissal of a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, with a hearing required when a specific sworn denial rebuts the process server's prima facie showing.

Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Ortiz · filed 2019-07-03(a)(8)

However, when a defendant submits a sworn denial of receipt of service containing specific facts to refute the statements in the affidavit of the process server, the prima facie showing is rebutted and the plaintiff must establish personal jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence at [*2]a hearing ( see Mizerek v Rosenfeld , 162 AD3d 1005, 1006-1007; Citibank, N.A. v Balsamo , 144 AD3d 964).

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal of a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Grandelli v. Hope St. Holdings, LLC · filed 2019-10-16(a)(8)

Here, the Supreme Court should have granted Warner Europe's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the amended complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against it for lack of personal jurisdiction because it established that it did not expect or reasonably should have expected its production of brakes to have consequences in New York.

Section 3211(a)(8) permits a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists when opposing it.

Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v. American Ind. Ins. Co. · filed 2019-10-25(a)(8)

"In opposing a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that such jurisdiction exists" ( Hopstein v Cohen , 143 AD3d 859 , 860 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Lang v Wycoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. , 55 AD3d 793 , 794 [2008]).

A motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction may be denied when the record supports a finding of valid service.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Kaur · filed 2019-11-27(a)(8)

Accordingly, we agree with the Supreme Court's determination, upon the referee's decision, to deny the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the order of reference and the judgment of foreclosure and sale, and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On a CPLR 3211(a)(8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists.

Skutnik v. Messina · filed 2019-12-04(a)(8)

"In opposing a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that such jurisdiction exists" ( Hopstein v Cohen , 143 AD3d at 860 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

A plaintiff opposing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 3211(a)(8) need only make a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists.

Parisien v. American Ind. Ins. Co. · filed 2019-12-06(a)(8)

"In opposing a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that such jurisdiction exists" ( Hopstein v Cohen , 143 AD3d 859 , 860 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Lang v Wycoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. , 55 AD3d 793 [2008]).

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff needs only a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, but an attorney’s affirmation without personal knowledge is insufficient to make that showing.

Excel Prods., Inc. v. American Ind. Ins. Co. · filed 2019-12-06(a)(8)

"In opposing a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that such jurisdiction exists" ( Hopstein v Cohen , 143 AD3d 859 , 860 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Lang v Wycoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. , 55 AD3d 793 [2008]). In the case at bar, the affirmation of plaintiff's attorney was insufficient to demonstrate that personal jurisdiction over defendant existed under the Civil Court's long-arm statute ( see CCA 404 [a]), as plaintiff's counsel failed to establish that he possessed personal knowledge of the facts.

A plaintiff opposing a pre-answer motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(8) need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.

Domny Med. Servs., P.C. v. First Acceptance Ins. Co., Inc. · filed 2019-12-13(a)(8)

In order to successfully oppose a pre-answer motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8), a plaintiff "need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the . . . Court" ( Cornely v Dynamic HVAC Supply, LLC , 44 AD3d 986 , 986 [2007]; see also Hopstein v Cohen , [*2] 143 AD3d 859, 860 [2016]; EMC Health Prods., Inc. v Maryland Auto. Ins. Fund , 64 Misc 3d 146 [A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51316[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2019]; Pavlova v American Ind. Ins. Co. , 60 Misc 3d 128 [A], 2018 NY Slip Op 50943[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2018]).

Section 3211(a) does not warrant dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction when the defendants fail to demonstrate that jurisdiction is lacking.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Benitez · filed 2020-01-22(a)

Since the defendants failed to demonstrate lack of personal jurisdiction, we also agree with the court's determination to deny that branch of their motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

A motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction must be denied when the defendant consented to jurisdiction for the claim.

U.S. Immigration Fund LLC v. Litowitz · filed 2020-04-30(a)(8)

Because the third cause of action alleges that he breached the Confidentiality Agreement, his motion to dismiss that cause of action based only on CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction should have been denied.

A plaintiff opposing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to the court's jurisdiction.

Sacco v. Reel-O-Matic, Inc. · filed 2020-05-06(a)(8)

"However, to successfully oppose [a motion to dismiss for lack [*2]of personal jurisdiction], the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant was subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court" ( id. at 51).

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(8), a plaintiff need only show that facts may exist to support personal jurisdiction, though the party asserting jurisdiction bears the ultimate burden of proof.

Matter of Sundial Growers Inc. Sec. Litig. · filed 2020-05-15(a)(8)

Turning first to the threshold issue of personal jurisdiction, the Court finds that plaintiff has adequately alleged personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendants. While the ultimate burden of proof rests with the party asserting jurisdiction, in opposition to a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), a plaintiff need only demonstrate that facts "may exist" to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

Under CPLR 3211(a)(8), a defendant who fails to give specific facts rebutting an affidavit of service is not entitled to a hearing on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Einhorn · filed 2020-07-22(a)(8)

The defendant's affidavit was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service established by the affidavit of service, since the defendant failed to swear to specific facts rebutting the process server's sworn allegations that a person fitting the description of "Mr. Einhorn" was present at the defendant's residence at the time and accepted service on behalf of the defendant ( see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Decesare , 154 AD3d at 718). Thus, a hearing to determine the validity of service was not warranted, and we agree with the Supreme Court's denial of that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction ( see id. ).

A court must hold a hearing before deciding a CPLR 3211(8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction when evidence raises a factual dispute about service of process.

Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Esdelle · filed 2020-09-16(8)

Consequently, the Supreme Court should have conducted a hearing in order to resolve the defendant's jurisdictional objection before granting the plaintiff's motion, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment, and before denying the defendant's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(8) to dismiss the complaint, or alternatively, for leave to serve a late answer ( see US Bank, N.A. v Schumacher , 172 AD3d at 1138; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Tauber , 140 AD3d at 1154).

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction when the plaintiff fails to establish proper service of process.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Barasch · filed 2020-11-12(a)(8)

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination granting that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. ... Here, we find no basis to disturb the Supreme Court's determination based upon its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, that the plaintiff failed to meet its burden and that service was not properly effected upon the defendants ( see Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Vilfranc , 157 AD3d at 767; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Gordon , 129 AD3d at 769).

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a defendant's unsupported claim of residence elsewhere does not rebut the presumption of proper service raised by a process server's affidavit.

American Home Mtge. Acceptance, Inc. v. Lubonty · filed 2020-11-12(a)(8)

We also agree with the Supreme Court's determination denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. ... Accordingly, the defendant failed to rebut the presumption raised by the process [*2]server's affidavit.

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction when the defendant was not properly served.

Harewood v. Car · filed 2020-12-16(a)(8)

We agree with the Supreme Court's determination to grant Marks's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. ... In the absence of proper service, no personal jurisdiction was acquired over Marks ( see Klein v Educational Loan Servicing, LLC , 71 AD3d at 958).

A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction warrants a hearing on service when the defendant presents specific evidence rebutting the process server’s affidavit.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Guerrero · filed 2020-12-30(a)(8)

However, the defendant rebutted the presumption of valid service by the submission of an affidavit in which she averred that her residence and usual place of abode at the time of the purported service was located at an address in Jackson Heights (hereinafter the Jackson Heights address). ... Under these circumstances, a hearing on the issue of whether the defendant was properly served was warranted ( see Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Tobing , 175 AD3d 745, 747-748; HMC Assets, LLC v Dhanani , 173 AD3d 700, 701-702; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Stolzberg , 165 AD3d 624, 625-626; Bank of Am., N.A. v Latif , 148 AD3d 967, 969).

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 3211(a)(8), the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists.

Sutton v. Houllou · filed 2021-02-24(a)(8)

"In opposing a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that such jurisdiction exists" ( Skutnik v Messina , 178 AD3d 744, 744-745 [internal quotation marks omitted]).

A party may raise lack of personal jurisdiction through a CPLR 3211(a)(8) motion; an unauthorized attorney appearance does not waive the objection.

Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Beckford · filed 2021-07-14(a)(8)

The Supreme Court erred in denying the defendant's motion on the ground that she waived any claim that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. Although the filing of a notice of appearance by a party's counsel "'serves as a waiver of any objection to personal jurisdiction in the absence of either the service of an answer which raises a jurisdictional objection, or a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction'" ( U.S. Rof III Legal Tit. Trust 2015-1 v John , 189 AD3d 1645, 1649, quoting U.S. Bank N.A. v Pepe , 161 AD3d 811, 812), the defendant denies that an attorney ever appeared for her in this action.

A motion under CPLR 3211(a)(8) that raises only personal jurisdiction must be addressed before the court resolves the petition's merits.

People ex rel. Curran v. Keyser · filed 2021-07-22(a)(8)

We note that respondent did not serve a return and the Attorney General's motion to dismiss solely addressed lack of personal jurisdiction ( see CPLR 3211 [a] [8]; 404 [a]) and did not address the merits of the petition or contain information expected in a return ( see CPLR 7008 [b]). Thus, the court should have addressed the motion and should not have resolved the merits ( compare People ex rel. Figueroa v Keyser , 193 AD3d 1148, 1149 n1 [2021]; People ex rel. Carroll v Keyser , 184 AD3d at 192).

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction when the plaintiff has not properly served the defendant.

Wang v. Stony Brook Univ. Hosp. (SUNY) · filed 2021-10-27(a)(8)

Here, by mailing the summons and complaint via regular mail, the plaintiff failed to properly effectuate service ( see CPLR 307, 308, 312-a). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction.

A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction fails when the defendants do not rebut the presumption of proper service created by the process server's affidavits.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Westchester County Pub. Adm'r · filed 2021-10-27(a)(8)

Here, the defendants' submissions in support of their motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale dated March 12, 2015, insofar as asserted against them, and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction, were insufficient to defeat the presumption of proper service created by the affidavits of the plaintiff's process server demonstrating that personal service was made upon Patricia ( see id. § 308[1]), and that she accepted service on behalf of Mohamed and Tony ( see id. § 308[2]).

A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction fails when the defendant does not show prejudice from the absence of an index number and filing date on the documents served.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Pezzola · filed 2021-11-17(a)(8)

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's cross motion, as the defendant failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the absence of both an index number and the date of filing on the documents with which he had been served ( see e.g. Nikolaidis v Makita Corp. , 242 AD2d 322, 323; Cellular Tel. Co. v Village of Tarrytown , 209 AD2d 57, 64-65).

A court must hold a hearing before deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction when a specific sworn denial rebuts the process server's proof of service.

Bank of N.Y. v. Dutan · filed 2021-12-01(a)(8)

Under these circumstances, a hearing on the issue of whether the defendant was properly served was warranted ( see Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Tobing , 175 AD3d 745, 747).

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal of claims against a defendant when the court lacks personal jurisdiction over that defendant.

US Bank N.A. v. McGown · filed 2021-12-08(a)(8)

Similarly, CPLR 3211(a)(8) provides that a party may move for judgment dismissing causes of action against him or her where "the court has not jurisdiction of the person of the defendant." Here, A.M. is entitled to vacatur of the April 28, 2016 order of reference and dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction, but an attorney’s affirmation without personal knowledge is insufficient.

Vladenn Med. Supply Corp. v. American Ind. Ins. Co. · filed 2021-12-10(a)(8)

"In opposing a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that such jurisdiction exists" ( Hopstein v Cohen , 143 AD3d 859, 860 [2016] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Lang v Wycoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. , 55 AD3d 793 [2008]). In the case at bar, the affirmation of plaintiff's attorney was insufficient to demonstrate that personal jurisdiction over defendant existed under the Civil Court's long-arm statute ( see CCA 404 [a]), as plaintiff's counsel failed to establish that he possessed personal knowledge of the facts.

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal of a complaint against a defendant when the plaintiff fails to establish personal jurisdiction through proper service of process.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Mangroo · filed 2021-12-15(a)(8)

Here, viewing the evidence in its totality, the plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over the defendant was obtained by proper service of process ( see Eastern Sav. Bank, FSB v Campbell , 167 AD3d at 714; Contimortgage Corp. v Isler , 48 AD3d 732, 733-735). ... Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendant's motion which were to vacate the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale and to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personal jurisdiction.

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction when the plaintiff fails to serve the defendant within the extended time allowed.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fameux · filed 2022-01-26(a)(8)

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal [*3]jurisdiction, and providently exercised its discretion by, in effect, denying the plaintiff's cross application pursuant to CPLR 306-b for a second extension of time to serve the summons and complaint upon the defendant.

A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction fails when the plaintiff proves valid service by a preponderance of the evidence.

Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Greenfeld · filed 2022-03-30(a)(8)

Here, the plaintiff met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was validly served by delivering the summons and complaint within the state to a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant's dwelling place or usual place of abode and by mailing a copy to the defendant at that address ( see CPLR 308[2]), and we find no basis to disturb the Court Attorney Referee's finding that the testimony of the two process servers was more credible than that of the defendant ( see U.S. Bank N.A. v Kaur , 177 AD3d 1016, 1017-1018; Wells Fargo Bank, NA v Burshstein , 172 AD3d at 1437).

A motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(8) may be denied without a hearing when the defendant's submissions fail to rebut the presumption of proper service.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Singh · filed 2022-04-06(a)(8)

The defendant's submissions in support of his motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the order of reference and the judgment of foreclosure and sale and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him were insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service or to warrant a hearing.

A motion under CPLR 3211(a)(8) may be granted when the plaintiff fails to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that the court acquired personal jurisdiction.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Gewirtz · filed 2022-04-27(a)(8)

As the plaintiff failed to establish by a preponderance of the credible evidence that personal jurisdiction was acquired over the defendants, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them ( see Grand Pac. Mtge. Corp. v Pietranski , 175 AD3d at 1505) .

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 3211(a)(8), a process server's affidavit creates a presumption of proper service, and an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary if the defendant fails to rebut it.

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Manasia · filed 2022-05-18(a)(8)

Contrary to Lisa's contention, she failed to rebut the presumption of proper service established by the process server's affidavit so as to necessitate an evidentiary hearing. ... Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, those branches of Lisa's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

A CPLR 3211(a)(8) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction fails when an affidavit establishes proper service and the defendant does not rebut it.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Rauff · filed 2022-05-18(a)(8)

The Supreme Court properly denied those branches of Denise's cross motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) and, in effect, CPLR 5015(a)(4). ... The affidavits submitted by Denise failed to rebut the presumption of proper service.

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, but a service challenge does not warrant dismissal or a hearing when the service affidavit establishes prima facie valid service and the denial is conclusory or unsupported by specific facts.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Kenol · filed 2022-05-25(a)(8)

Here, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The process server's affidavit of service constituted prima facie evidence of valid service pursuant to CPLR 308(1) ( see Zhuoya Lou v Wensheng Wang , 176 AD3d 1016, 1018; see also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Tricarico , 139 AD3d 722).

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a process server's affidavit establishes a presumption of proper service that an unsubstantiated, conclusory denial does not rebut.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Lubonty · filed 2022-07-06(a)(8)

The defendant's affidavit, in which he averred that he resides in New Jersey, was unsubstantiated and conclusory, and failed to rebut the presumption of proper service established by the process server's affidavits ( see American Home Mtge. Acceptance, Inc. v Lubonty , 188 AD3d 767, 770). The Supreme Court therefore also properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.

When a defendant contests personal jurisdiction on a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists.

Island Life Chiropractic Pain Care, PLLC v. American Ind. Ins. Co. · filed 2022-08-19(a)(8)

Similarly, after defendant American Independent Insurance Companies, Inc. contested jurisdiction, "plaintiff need[ed] only make a prima facie showing that such jurisdiction exists" ( Hopstein , 143 AD3d at 860 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Lang v Wycoff Hgts. Med. Ctr. , 55 AD3d 793 [2008]).

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal of a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction when service of process is invalid.

Mendez v. Rattigan · filed 2022-10-05(a)(8)

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the order dated September 24, 2019, and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 3211(a)(8), the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.

Chiesa v. McGregor · filed 2022-10-26(a)(8)

"However, in opposing a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that such jurisdiction exists" ( Altman v DiPreta , 204 AD3d at 967 [alterations and internal quotation marks omitted]).

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal of a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Brocco v. Eastern Metal Recycling Terminal LLC · filed 2022-12-29(a)(8)

Supreme Court correctly dismissed the complaint against EMR for lack of personal jurisdiction ( see CPLR 3211[a][8]).

A motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction fails when the defendant does not rebut the presumption of proper service.

Citmortgage, Inc. v. Barton · filed 2023-01-18(a)(8)

The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction, since the defendant failed to rebut the presumption of proper service ( see Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co., N.A. v Kahn , 192 AD3d 1070, 1071).

A CPLR 3211(a)(8) motion for lack of personal jurisdiction fails when an affidavit establishes proper service and the defendant offers only a denial of receipt.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Logan Estates, LLC · filed 2023-02-08(a)(8)

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of Logan's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. ... However, the mere denial of receipt of the summons and complaint was insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service created by the affidavit of service ( see CPLR 311[a][1]; Business Corporation Law § 306; Gartner v Unified Windows, Doors & Siding, Inc. , 71 AD3d 631, 632; Coyle v Mayer Realty Corp. , 54 AD3d 713).

To oppose a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 3211(a)(8), a plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence through affidavits and relevant documents to establish jurisdiction.

Cedar Capital Mgt. Group Inc. v. Lillie · filed 2023-08-07(a)(8)

To successfully oppose a motion for lack of personal jurisdiction brought under CPLR 3211 (a) (8), "the plaintiff must come forward with sufficient evidence, through affidavits and relevant documents, to prove the existence of jurisdiction" ( State of New York v Vayu, Inc ., 39 NY3d 330, 339 [2023] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]).

A plaintiff opposing a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction need only make a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists.

Fundfi Merchant Funding, LLC v. BKT High Quality Healthcare Agency LLC · filed 2024-01-10(a)(8)

"In opposing a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that such jurisdiction exists."

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction when a petitioner fails to follow the service directions in an order to show cause, even if respondents receive actual notice.

Matter of Robins v. Rosa · filed 2024-03-28(a)(8)

Neither the fact that respondents actually received notice nor the fact that petitioner complied with the order's method of service — i.e., overnight courier — are of any moment because failure to strictly comply with the service directives in an order to show cause is a jurisdictional defect ( see Macchia v Russo , 67 NY2d 592, 595 [1986]; Matter of Czajka v Dellehunt , 125 AD3d at 1182). Thus, Supreme Court did not err in granting respondents' motion to dismiss on this ground.

Section 3211(a)(8) permits a defendant to seek dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Mandour v. Rafalsky · filed 2024-04-01(a)(8)

A defendant may move pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) to dismiss an action for lack of personal jurisdiction.

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, and when service validity is disputed the court must first hold a hearing to determine whether service was proper.

Doe v. Mesivtha, Inc. · filed 2024-04-24(a)(8)

Here, the Supreme Court erred in determining the defendant's motion, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction without first conducting a hearing to determine the validity of service of process on the defendant ( see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v Rini , 218 AD3d at 666; Jampolskaya v Ilona Genis, MD, P.C. , 205 AD3d 785, 786).

Section 3211(a)(8) requires a plaintiff opposing dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction to make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to the court's jurisdiction.

Oasis Invs. II Master Fund Ltd. v. Mo · filed 2024-05-02(a)(8)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a)(8), the plaintiff bears the ultimate burden to establish a basis for personal jurisdiction ( Nick v Schneider , 150 AD3d 1250, 1251 [2d Dept 2017]). But to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR § 3211 (a)(8), "the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court" ( Whitcraft v Runyon , 123 AD3d 811, 812 [2014]).

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the court must resolve the jurisdictional objection before denying the motion.

Matter of Lester Korinman Kamran & Masini, P.C. v. Davis · filed 2024-05-15(a)(8)

Consequently, the Supreme Court should have conducted a hearing in order to resolve the appellant's jurisdictional objection before granting the petition and before denying the appellant's cross-motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the petition ( see Bank of Am., N.A. v Lewis , 190 AD3d 910, 911; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Esdelle , 186 AD3d at 1387-1388; U.S. Bank, N.A. v Tauber , 140 AD3d at 1155).

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction and requires the plaintiff to show that jurisdiction is proper.

Board of Mgrs. for Crotona Towers Condominium v. Jenser LLC · filed 2024-06-06(a)(8)

"In opposing a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), plaintiff has the burden of presenting sufficient evidence, through affidavits and relevant documents, to demonstrate that jurisdiction over the defendants is warranted" ( Bangladesh Bank v Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. , 226 AD3d 60, 73-74 [1st Dept 2024]; accord Fischbarg v Doucet , 9 NY3d 375, 381 at n. 5 [2007]).

CPLR 3211(a) permits a defendant to raise a jurisdictional defense in a pre-answer motion to dismiss.

Advance Serv. Group, LLC v. Vision Home Bldrs. LLC · filed 2024-07-02(a)

In order to assert such defenses, Respondents' must plead it affirmatively in their answer pursuant to CPLR 3018(b) or in a pre-answer motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a).

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must make a sufficient start toward showing a basis for jurisdiction.

Amelia Mar. Group Ltd. v. Integr8 Fuels Am. LLC · filed 2024-09-03(a)(8)

Plaintiff has failed to make a sufficient start to demonstrate a basis for general jurisdiction over Integr8 America.

A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction fails when proper service is established and the defendant does not rebut it; late filing of proof of service is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect.

Palma v. Apatow · filed 2024-09-18(a)(8)

Here, the defendants failed to rebut the presumption of proper service with respect to Carelpicerno, which was established by the plaintiff's process server's affidavit ( see Green Tree Servicing, LLC v Frantzeskakis , 200 AD3d 654, 655; Nationstar Mtge., LLC v Einhorn , 185 AD3d 945, 946). Contrary to the defendants' contention, the plaintiff's "failure to timely file proof of service [wa]s a mere procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect" ( Tulino v Hiller, P.C. , 202 AD3d at 1136 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Welz , 211 AD3d 1083, 1084).

A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction requires a hearing when specific facts rebut the presumption of proper service.

Citimortgage, Inc. v. Goldstein · filed 2024-09-18(a)(8)

Consequently, the Supreme Court should have conducted a hearing before determining that branch of the appellants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction when defendants deny service and the plaintiff offers no evidence to refute them.

Talk of the Town Realty Corp. v. New Point Estate Family Ltd. Partnership · filed 2024-09-25(a)(8)

Next, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the New Point defendants' motion which were pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate their default in answering the complaint and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. In support of their motion, the New Point defendants averred that they were never served with the summons and complaint. "On this point, the affidavit of service of a process server generally constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service" ( 2004 McDonald Ave. Corp. v KGYM Holdings Group, Inc. , 165 AD3d 614, 615). Here, there are no affidavits of service of the summons and complaint upon the New Point defendants on file with the court. In opposition to the New Point defendants' motion, the plaintiff failed to produce any such affidavits of service or otherwise to refute the New Point defendants' claim that they were not served with process.

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 3211(a)(8), the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that jurisdiction exists.

Trotman v. Priority Auto, Inc. · filed 2024-10-23(a)(8)

However, "[w]hen opposing a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, a plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that personal jurisdiction over the moving defendant exists" ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted]).

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, and conflicting evidence about service requires a hearing before the motion is decided.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Henry · filed 2024-11-13(a)(8)

The Supreme Court erred in granting the defendant's motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate, inter alia, the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale insofar as entered against her and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personal jurisdiction without first conducting a hearing.

A court that finds it lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant need not analyze that defendant's CPLR 3211(g) motion.

Umami Labs LLC v. Erisman · filed 2024-11-21(g)

Contrary to defendant's contention, once the court found in his favor that it lacked personal jurisdiction over him, it was not required to perform an analysis under CPLR 3211(g) or to reach his claim under the Civil Rights Law ( see e.g. Vuzix Corp. v Pearson , 2019 WL 5865342, 2019 US Dist LEXIS 195269 [SD NY Nov. 6, 2019, 19 Civ 689 (NRB)]; see generally Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp. , 71 NY2d 460, 470 [1988]).

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction when the defendant was not properly served and the plaintiff is not entitled to more time to serve.

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Labin · filed 2024-11-27(a)(8)

Since the defendant was not properly served with the summons and complaint and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate entitlement to an extension of time to effectuate service, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her.

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction when service of process is ineffective.

Flatow v. Goddess Sanctuary & Spa Corp. · filed 2024-12-04(a)(8)

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction.

CPLR 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal when ineffective service leaves the court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

Farrell v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. · filed 2025-01-07(a)(8)

Further, upon NYCHHC’s cross motion, the Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) due to Plaintiffs’ failure to obtain personal jurisdiction over NYCHHC.

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction when service of process is insufficient.

Creswell Invs., Ltd. v. Brazil+Q1 Ltd. · filed 2025-01-08(a)(8)

Here, with respect to Laudano, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the process server acted with due diligence before relying on affix and mail service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) ( see Niebling v Pioreck , 222 AD3d at 874; Faruk v Dawn , 162 AD3d 744, 745). ... Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) that branch of the defendants' cross-motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Laudano and denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to enter a default judgment against Laudano ( see Niebling v Pioreck , 222 AD3d at 875).

CPLR 3211(a) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction when the plaintiff fails to show proper service of the summons and complaint.

Carrington v. Northwell Health · filed 2025-01-08(a)

The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Kylie for lack of personal jurisdiction, as the plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit of service demonstrating that he properly served Kylie with the summons and complaint ( see Deb v Hayut , 171 AD3d 862, 863; see also Silvering v Sunrise Family Med., P.C. , 161 AD3d 1021, 1022).

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the plaintiff bears the burden of showing that jurisdiction is warranted.

Wilmar Sugar Pte. Ltd. v. Chiaradia · filed 2025-01-08(a)(8)

CPLR § 3211(a)(8) allows a party to move to dismiss claims asserted against them on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over the party. When such a motion is brought, the plaintiff then “has the burden of presenting sufficient evidence, through affidavits and relevant documents, to demonstrate that jurisdiction over the defendants is warranted.” ... Plaintiff has failed to meet their burden of establishing that this Court has personal jurisdiction over the Individual Defendant.

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, once the moving party makes a prima facie showing, the party asserting jurisdiction must present sufficient evidence to establish it.

Cosom v. Mack Trucks, Inc. · filed 2025-01-09(a)(8)

CPLR § 3211(a)(8) provides for dismissal of an action based on the court's lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Once the moving party establishes, prima facie , the merit of a motion under this provision, the party asserting jurisdiction has the burden of presenting sufficient evidence, through affidavits and relevant documents, to demonstrate jurisdiction ( Fischbarg v Doucet , 9 NY3d 375, 381 at n. 5 [2007]; Bangladesh Bank v Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. , 226 AD3d 60, 73-74 [1st Dept 2024]; Coast to Coast Energy, Inc. v Gasarch , 149 AD3d 485, 486 [1st Dept 2017]).

When a defendant gives a sworn, nonconclusory denial of service, the plaintiff must prove personal jurisdiction at a hearing before the court determines a motion to dismiss under this subsection.

Nationstar Mtge., LLC v. Molyaev · filed 2025-02-05(a)(8)

Where, however, there is a sworn, nonconclusory denial of service by a defendant, the affidavit of service is rebutted and the plaintiff must establish jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing ( see Christiana Trust v Mauro , 191 AD3d at 758; Washington Mut. Bank v Murphy , 127 AD3d at 1174). ... Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a hearing [*3]to determine the validity of service of process upon the defendant and a new determination thereafter of those branches of the defendant's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the February 2018 order and the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale and to set aside the foreclosure sale of the property and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for lack of personal jurisdiction.

A CPLR 3211(a)(8) motion for lack of personal jurisdiction may be denied without a hearing when the defendant's denial does not specifically rebut the process server's affidavit of service.

Jackson 50-Lee LP v. Rahul Exclusive, Inc. · filed 2025-02-13(a)(8)

Chugh's averment that he did not live with the person described in the process server's affidavit, without more, was insufficient to rebut the presumption [*2]of proper service created by the process server's affidavit ( see Bank of N.Y. Mellon v Lawson , 176 AD3d 1155, 1157). ... Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against Chugh for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Section 3211(a)(8) permits dismissal of a complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction when the defendant was not properly served.

Sams Distribs., LLC v. Friedman · filed 2025-02-26(a)(8)

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate the judgment and, thereupon, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Speculative assertions are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 3211(a)(8).

Grosso v. Cy Twombly Found. · filed 2025-04-03(a)(8)

It is well settled that speculative assertions are not sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction ( see e.g. Breakaway Courier Corp. v Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. , 192 AD3d 501, 501-502 [1st Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 916 [2021]; Coast to Coast Energy v Gasarch , 149 AD3d 485, 487 [1st Dept 2017]), and thus the court need not have given weight to plaintiff's speculation that Del Roscio must have conducted business in New York and possibly attended Twombly exhibitions in New York.

A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction may be denied without a hearing when the defendant offers only conclusory denials of service that do not rebut the process server’s affidavit.

TD Bank, N.A. v. PB Sales Inc. · filed 2025-05-27(a)(8)

Therefore, when a defendant "fails to swear to specific facts to rebut the statements in the process· server's affidavit [of service]" ( City ofNew York v Miller, 72 AD3d 726, 727 [2d Dept. 201 OJ) or their affidavit amounts "fo no illore than bare and cortclusory deriials of service" (Associates First Capital Corp. v Wiggins, 75.AD3q. 614, 614-615 [2d Dept .20 I 01), a 1nCJtion to dismiss may be denied without ahearing.

On a section 3211(a)(8) motion, the plaintiff must provide affidavits or other documents showing that jurisdiction over the defendants is warranted.

Dewald v. Pirkyl · filed 2025-05-29(a)(8)

On a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(8), the plaintiff has the burden of showing sufficient evidence through affidavits and other documents that jurisdiction over the defendants is warranted (Bangladesh Bank v Rizal Commercial Banking Corp., 226 AD3d 60, 73-74 [1st Dept ... 2024]).

Section 3211(d) permits a plaintiff opposing dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction to show that facts supporting jurisdiction may exist, without making a prima facie showing.

Barber v. Loreal USA, Inc. · filed 2025-06-06(d)

However, courts do not require the plaintiff to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction, but only to demonstrate that facts "may exist" to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant (see CPLR 3211 [d]; American BankNote Corp. v. Daniele, 45 AD3d 338, 340 [1st Dept 2007]).

A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction requires a hearing before determination when the validity of service of process is disputed.

Miller v. Fuentes · filed 2025-06-11(a)(8)

Here, the Supreme Court erred in determining the defendant's cross-motion, inter alia, to vacate the judgment and to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction without first conducting a hearing to determine the validity of service of process.

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 3211(a)(8), an affidavit of service establishes prima facie proper service, and minor discrepancies in a denial do not rebut that showing.

Matter of Jest Holdings, LLC v. Welz · filed 2025-06-11(a)(8)

Here, the affidavit of the petitioner's process server established, prima facie, proper service pursuant to CPLR 308(2) ( see Sperry Assoc. Fed. Credit Union v Lee , 193 AD3d at 1013; Marathon Structured Asset Solutions Trust v Fennell , 153 AD3d 511, 512). ... Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the respondent's motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the order dated June 30, 2022, and pursuant to 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the petition.

CPLR 3211(e) waives objections to personal jurisdiction when they are omitted from both the responsive pleading and a pre-answer motion to dismiss.

Matter of B.M (J.M.) · filed 2025-09-03(e)

As a threshold matter, these objections have been waived, as they were not raised in the AIP's answer or made in a pre-answer motion to dismiss ( see CPLR 3211[e]).

A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is properly denied when the defendant fails to rebut the presumption of proper service created by the process server's affidavit.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Raimo · filed 2025-09-17(a)(8)

The affidavits and documents submitted by the defendant were insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service created by the process server's affidavit of service ( see Carver Fed. Sav. Bank v Supplice , 109 AD3d 572, 572-573). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her for lack of personal jurisdiction and properly denied that branch of the defendant's separate motion which was to set aside the sale of the property ( see U.S. Bank N.A. v Fessler , 231 AD3d at 899).

Section 3211(e) waives an improper-service objection to personal jurisdiction when a defendant fails to raise it in a motion to dismiss.

Sabr Chems. Group, LLC v. Northeast Chems., Inc. · filed 2025-10-23(e)

Additionally, United Foods Corporation (and thus United Foods Corp.) waived any personal jurisdiction argument based on improper service when it failed to raise this issue in its CPLR 3211(a) motion to dismiss the complaint in the related action plaintiff commenced against United Foods Corporation and Mr. Hsu, which was later consolidated with this action ( see CPLR 3211[e]; Competello v Giordano , 51 NY2d 904, 905 [1980]).

A CPLR 3211(a)(8) motion may be denied when the defendant’s jurisdictional evidence is inadmissible and a material factual dispute remains over whether it transacts business in New York.

Lifeline Med. Imaging, P.C. v. Safe Auto Ins. Co. · filed 2025-11-14(a)(8)

In this case, Defendant has failed to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form in support of its motion to dismiss based on the Court’s lack of personal jurisdiction. ... As such, contrary to Defendant’s assertions, triable issues of material fact exist as to whether Defendant transacts business in the State of New York which precludes granting its motion to dismiss the complaint.

A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction may be denied when the defendant's proof is deficient and factual issues remain for trial.

Pyramid Care, P.T., P.C. v. Safe Auto Ins. Co. · filed 2025-12-05(a)(8)

In addition to its determination that there were various deficiencies in defendant's submissions which required its motion to be denied, the court found that sufficient issues of fact existed "as to whether defendant does not do business in the State of New York" and, therefore, held that the issue of personal jurisdiction would be determined at trial. We find that this determination by the Civil Court was proper under the circumstances of this case.

Under CPLR 3211(a)(8), factual issues about whether a defendant does business in New York may warrant deciding personal jurisdiction at trial.

LV Med. Diagnostic Servs., P.C. v. Safe Auto Ins. Co. · filed 2025-12-05(a)(8)

In addition to its determination that there were various deficiencies in defendant's [*2]submissions which required its motion to be denied, the court found that sufficient issues of fact existed "as to whether defendant does not do business in the State of New York" and, therefore, held that the issue of personal jurisdiction would be determined at trial. We find that this determination by the Civil Court was proper under the circumstances of this case.

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must present sufficient evidence through affidavits and relevant documents to show that jurisdiction is warranted.

ALPI U.S.A., Inc. v. Cool Living OY · filed 2026-03-13(a)(8)

CPLR § 3211(a)(8) allows a party to move to dismiss claims asserted against them on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction over the party. When such a motion is brought, the plaintiff then “has the burden of presenting sufficient evidence, through affidavits and relevant documents, to demonstrate that jurisdiction over the defendants is warranted.” Bangladesh Bank v. Rizal Commercial Banking Corp., 226 A.D.3d 60, 74 [1st Dept. 2024]. ... Plaintiff therefore has sufficiently established that jurisdiction over the Moving Defendants is warranted.

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to the court's jurisdiction, although the ultimate burden of proof remains with the plaintiff.

Gorgia v. Dolan · filed 2026-06-10(a)(8)

"Although the ultimate burden of proof regarding personal jurisdiction rests with the plaintiff, to defeat a CPLR 3211(a)(8) motion to dismiss a complaint, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that the defendant is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court" ( Whitcraft v Runyon , 123 AD3d 811, 812; see Weitz v Weitz , 85 AD3d 1153, 1153).

Section 3211(a)(8) allows a court to decide personal jurisdiction without deciding the defendant’s ultimate liability.

Evans v. Planned Parenthood of Broome County, Inc. · filed 1974-02-14(a)(8)

In its major interpretation of CPLR 302, the Court of Appeals made it clear that on a challenge to in personam jurisdiction under CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 8), the court was “concerned solely with the problem of the court’s jurisdiction over the person of a nonresident defendant and not with the question of his ultimate liability to a particular plaintiff” (Longines-Wittnauer Watch Go. v. Barnes & Beinecke, 15 N Y 2d 443, 460).

On a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 3211(a)(8), a process server's affidavit is prima facie evidence of proper service, which the defendant must rebut.

Margarella v. Ullian · filed 2018-08-29(a)(8)

The record supports the Supreme Court's denial of the defendant's cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction. The process server's affidavits constituted prima facie evidence of proper service ( see Citimortgage, Inc. v Baser , 137 AD3d 735, 736; American Home Mtge. Servicing, Inc. v Gbede , 127 AD3d 1004, 1005; Indymac Fed. Bank, FSB v Hyman , 74 AD3d 751, 751). The defendant's submissions in support of the cross motion were insufficient to defeat the presumption of proper service ( see Kondaur Capital Corp. v McAuliffe , 156 AD3d 778, 779; US Bank N.A. v Cherubin , 141 AD3d 514, 516; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v Kohn , 137 AD3d 897, 897; Indymac Fed. Bank, FSB v Hyman , 74 AD3d at 751).

A defendant who appears and seeks relief on the merits must raise a CPLR 3211(a)(8) personal jurisdiction objection by motion or in the answer to preserve it.

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Rodriguez · filed 2022-01-11(a)(8)

"Subject to the provisions of subdivision (c), an appearance of the defendant is equivalent to personal service of the summons upon [her], unless an objection to jurisdiction under paragraph eight of subdivision (a) of rule 3211 is asserted by motion or in the answer as provided in rule 3211" (CPLR 320[b]; see Urena v NYNEX, Inc. , 223 AD2d 442, 443 [1st Dept 1996]; Rubino v City of New York , 145 AD2d 285, 288 [1st Dept 1989]). ... Although both defendant and her counsel stated that defendant did not receive the summons and complaint or any "court papers," their failure to move at that time to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction failed to preserve such objection (CPLR 320[b]).

A defendant who appears must raise a personal-jurisdiction objection under § 3211(a)(8) by motion or in an answer to avoid the appearance's effect as personal service.

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Carnevale · filed 2023-11-29(a)(8)

The defendant filed a notice of appearance in the action, which is "equivalent to personal service of the summons upon [her], unless an objection to jurisdiction under [CPLR 3211(a)(8)] is asserted by motion or in the answer as provided in [CPLR] 3211" (CPLR 320[b]; see Mid-Island Mtge. Corp. v Johnson , 175 AD3d 490, 491-492). The defendant did not oppose the plaintiff's motion on any ground, including lack of personal jurisdiction, and did not otherwise object to jurisdiction in an answer or motion to dismiss ( see Mid-Island Mtge. Corp. v Johnson , 175 AD3d at 491-492).

CPLR 3211(a)(7) permits dismissal when the complaint’s factual allegations are inherently incredible.

Lamb v. Unknown Offs. of the Dept. of Health Mental Hygiene's Offs. · filed 2026-05-13(a)(7)

The court also properly directed dismissal of the remaining causes of action (1) pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5), as barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, because they were raised and dismissed, in effect, on the merits, in the prior federal and state actions, in which the plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to litigate their claims (see Altman v Orseck, 235 AD3d 818; Benzemann v Citibank N.A., 149 AD3d 586, 587; Lamb v Governor for N.Y. State, 90 AD3d at 716; Bank v Brooklyn Law School, 297 AD2d 770, 770), and (2) pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), as the plaintiffs' factual allegations are "inherently incredible" (Mensah v Polytechnic Univ., 68 AD3d 411, 412; see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88; Hughes v Vento, 226 AD3d 753, 754; Sweeney v Sweeney, 71 AD3d 989, 991; Tyler v Carter, 151 FRD 537, 537-538 [SD NY], affd 41 F3d 1500 [2d Cir]).

On a pre-answer motion to dismiss discrimination claims, the complaint receives every favorable inference and is assessed under a lenient notice-pleading standard.

Farmer v. Mizuho Sec. USA LLC · filed 2026-05-12(a)(5) and (7)

Affording plaintiff the benefit of every favorable inference on this pre-answer motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(5) and (7) and applying the lenient notice-pleading standard afforded to discrimination claims, the complaint adequately pleads a claim for gender discrimination under both the State HRL (Executive Law § 296) and the City HRL (Administrative Code of City of NY § 8-107; ...).

On a motion to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7), a court need not accept conclusory allegations made on information and belief as true.

KSFB Mgt., LLC v. Goldman Sachs & Co., LLC · filed 2026-04-07(a)(7)

We need not accept as true plaintiff's conclusory allegations, made upon information and belief, that Goldman disclosed plaintiff's confidential information to CD&R (see Skillgames, LLC v Brody, 1 AD3d 247, 250 [1st Dept 2003]).