Califano v Gago

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Califano v Gago 2011 NY Slip Op 32414(U) September 8, 2011 Sup Ct, Nassau County Docket Number: 4668/11 Judge: Thomas P. Phelan Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] SCAM SHORT FORM ORDER SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK Present: HON. THOMAS P. PHELAN. Justice TRIAL/IAS PART 2 NASSAU COUNTY JACQUELINE D. CALIFANO as Administratrix of the Estate of MICHAEL J. CALIFANO deceased, and JACQUELINE D. CALIFANO indi"idllall)T , Plaintiff( s), ORIGINAL RETURN DATE:06/17/11 SUBMISSION DATE: 07/28/11 INDEX No. : 4668/11 -against - JOSE A. GAGO , JR. , NICOLE YATES, JOHN R. KALEY , A AND N AUTO SERVICE MOTION SEQUENCE #1 LLC , P. V. HOLDING CORP. , AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM , LLC, AVIS BUDGET GROUP , INC. , c:OLONIAL HONDA OF DARTMOUTH , COLONIAL AUTOMOTIVE GROUP , INC. , GORDON CHEVROLET- GEO INC. , and COLONIAL CHEVROLET OF ACTION Defendant( s). The following papers read on this motion: Notice of Motion........................... .,. Answering Papers.................................................. Sllpplemental Affirmation in Opposition. Repl)T......................................................... [* 2] Page 2. RE: CALIFANO v. GAGO, et al. Motion pllrsllant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) b)T defendants, Colonial Honda of Dartmouth Colonial Alltomoti"e Grollp, Inc. and Gordon Chevrolet- GEO , Inc. , for an order dismissing the complaint against them on the grollnds that inter alia there exists no in personam jllrisdiction o"er them. The COllrt agrees. In Febrllar)T 2011 , Nassau COllnt) Police Officer Michael 1. Califano (" Officer Califano " ) was kiled when his patrol car , in which he was seated , was struck on the 228, 275 79Long Island Expresswa)T b)T a flatbed , transport truck (Cmplt. 367- 369). The transport , which was carr)Ting a 2010 Nissan Versa, was allegedl)T ownedb)T codefendant , A & N AlltO Service , LLC (" A & N" ), and operated b)T A & N emplo)Tee John R. Kale)T (Cmplt. , " 96- 97; 104- 118 , 373- 374). the accident, Officer Califano had plllled over another "ehicle operated b)T codefendant , Jose A. Gago (" Gago ), and then parked his marked Immediatel)T prior to patrol car behind Gago ' s "ehicle on the westbollnd , median strip of the Long Island Expresswa)T in the "icinit)T of Exit 39. Officer Califano was in the process of isslling a Sllmmons to Gago when the A & N flatbed truck carr)Ting the Nissan struck his patrol car and propelled it into the rear portion of Gago ' s vehicle (Cmplt. , " 379- 381). The " off lease " Nissan , which was being transported b)T A & N , had been acqllired in Januar)T 2011 b)T codefendant Colonial Honda of Dartmollth (" Colonial" ), a Massachllsetts corporation engaged in the wholesale-retail purchase and sale of new 6; 10- 11). and llsed cars (Sllrdis Aff. Colonial originall)T acqllired the Nissan throllgh an independent entit)T known as Openlane , an online allction compan)T llsed b)T " most car dealers in the U. S. ( ) to 10). At the time , the Nissan bll)T and/or sell wholesale "ehicles " (Sllrdis Aff. Versa which was owned b)T codefendant P. V. Holding Corporation , a Virgina-based corporation , and was located at the seller s place of bllsiness , a car dealership in Brookl)Tn , New York (Sllrdis Aff. " 10- 14 (Exs. 2 , 3); Downes Repl)T Aff. 10). Pllrsllant to Openlane s online pllrchasing s)Tstem , bll)TerS place internet bids on stated "ehicles, after which those "ehicles are then " automaticall)T sold" or awarded to the sllccessful bidder , who ma)T not necessaril)T know where the vehicles the)T [* 3] RE: CALIFANO v. GAGO, et al. Page 3. ha"e acqllired are located (Surdis Aff. , " 10- 11). Openlane alone then alltomaticall)T makes the arrangement for deli"er)T of the "ehicles to the bU)Ters and adds the transportation costs to the pllrchase price " (Surdis Aff. , '10). According to Nicholas Surdis , Colonial' s general manager , Colonial had in"ol"ement in the " selection of the transporter or the transporting dri"er " and in sllper"ised the manner in which the deli"ef) was to be accomplished (Sllrdis Aff. , " 11- 14). With respect to the sllbject transaction no sense controlled or Openlane , handled and maintained exclusi"e control over the shipping arrangements relating to the Nissan , and hired A & N to transport the "ehicle from Brookl)Tn to Colonial's Massachllsetts offices (Sllrdis Aff. , " 5- 6; 11- 16). It is settled that " New York' s long-arm statute pro"ides that ' a COllrt ma)T exercise personal jllrisdiction over an)T non- domicilar)T * * * who in person or throllgh an agent * * * transacts an)T business within the state or contracts an)Twhere to suppl)T goods or ser"ices in the state (Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., v. Montana Bd. of see also quoting from CPLR Investments 7 NY3d 65 Ehrenfeld v. Bin Mahfouz, 9 Fischbarg v. Doucet 9 NY3d 375 , 380Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp. 71 NY2d 460, 467 NY3d 501 508302(a)(1); , 71 (2006), 381 (2007); 509 (2007); (1988)). ' * * * proof of one transaction in New York is sufficient to in"oke jllrisdiction , e"en thollgh the defendant ne"er enters New York so long as the defendant' s acti"ities here were pllrposeful and there is a sllbstantial (Kreutter v. McFadden see , Fischbarg v. Doucet 9 NY3d 375 , 380Oil Corp. 71 NY2d 460 Deutsche Bank Securities , Inc. v. Montana Bd. of Investments , supra; Muse 34 AD3d Kimco Exchange Place Corp. v. Thomas Collections, Inc. v. Caris sima Bijoux , Inc. 86 AD 3d 631 , 632) PurSllant to " this ' single act statute relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted" , 467 (1988); 381 (2007); 433; Benz, Inc., The " o"erriding " criteria necessar)T to establish transaction ofbllsiness are "olitional acts b)T which a defendant ''' a"ails itself of the pri"ilege of condllcting acti"ities within the forum State , thusin"oking the benefits and protections of its laws (Fischbarg v. Doucet 9 NY3d at 380- 381 quoting from, McKee Elec. Co. v. Hanson v Denckla 357 US 235 Rauland-Borg Corp. 20 NY2d 377 Executive Life see, Johnson v. Ward 4 NY3d 516 , 519382 (1967); 253 (1958); 520 (2005); [* 4] RE: CALIFANO v. GAGO, et al. 68 AD3d 715 , 716Co. 95 NY2d 210 (2000)). Ltd. v. Silverman Page 4. see also, LaMarca v. Pak-Mor Mfg. 717; Jot all pllrposeful acti"it) * * * constitutes a ' transaction of bllsiness (Fischbarg v. Doucet 9 NY3d 375 , 380 Rather collrt(s) must look at the totalit) of the defendant' s actions to determine whether the defendant purposefull)T in"oked Howe"er (n within the meaning of CPLR 302(a)(1)" v. see, Ehrenfeld Bin Mahfouz, supra). (SBR Realty Corp. v. the benefits and protections of the laws of see, Longines- Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Pave-Mark Corp. 175 AD2d 240 New York" , 241; see generally, Fischbarg v. Reinecke 15 NY2d 443 , 457Benifts By Design Johnson v. Ward 4 NY3d at 519Doucet Parsons 75 AD 3d 826, 829Corp. v. Contractor Management Executive Life Ltd. v. Silverman v Kal Kan Food, Inc. 68AD3d 1501 , 150268 AD3d 715 , 716). The llltimate bllrden of proof rests with the part) asserting that Brandt v. Toraby, 84 AD3d 1322 273 AD2d 429, 430). 458 (1965); Barnes 520; at 380; , supra, 830; Services, LLC, 1503; , 1323; (see, College v. Brady, jurisdiction exists With these principles in mind , and e"en llpon fa"orabl)T construing and crediting the 85 AD3d 1153; (Weitz v. Weitz, complaint's rele"ant a"erments Brandt v. Toraby, theCollrt agrees that plaintiff has failed to rebllt the mo"ants ' e"identiar)T supra), jllrisdiction. in personam showing with respect to the isslle of Preliminaril)T, there is no material displlte that Colonial is a Massachusetts-based entit) that does not itself condllct or transact an)T meaningful business acti"ities in Isaac Aff. at 2). Accordingl)T, and the State of New York (Sllrdis Aff. in order to establish jllrisdiction o"er the mo"ing defendants under CPLR 302 8; plaintiff primaril)T arglles that see, A & N' s alleged negligence ShOllld be attribllted Colonial based on the theor)T that A & N acted as Colonial' s agent. which ha"e not personally transacted business in New York , ma)T stil be sllbject to jllrisdiction based llpon the actions of an agent see also , Karabu McFadden Oil Corp. 1998)), the evidence addllced Gitner 16 F. Sllpp. 2d 319 , 323 (S. here does not sllpport the existence of an agenc)T relationship within the meaning of CPLR 302. AlthOllgh foreign corporations , (CPLR 302(a); Corp. v. Kreutter v. 71 NY2d at 467; [* 5] Page 5. RE: CALIFANO v. GAGO, et al. To establish that a defendant acted throllgh an agent , a plaintiff must " con"ince the COllrt that (the New York actors) engaged in pllrposeful acti"ities in this State in relation to his transaction for the benefit of and with the knowledge and consent of (the defendant) and that the)T exercised some control over (the New York actors)" Alan Lupton Associates, Inc. see also, Kimco Exchange Place Corp. v. Northeast Plastics, Inc. 20 AD3d 663, 664; v. Thomas Benz, Inc. 34 AD3d 433 J Professional Personnel Management Corp. v. Southwest Medical Associates, Inc., Barbarotto Intern. Sales Corp. v. Tullar 188 AD2d 503 , 504; 216 AD2d 958 84 AD2d 744 745). J. E. T. 71 NY2d at 467; (Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp., 105 AD2d 3, 8; , 434; Polansky v Gelrod, , 959; Adv. Assoc. v Lawn King, (Barbarotto Intern. Sales Corp. The critical factor is the degree of control * * *" 188 AD2d 503 , 504), and a plaintiff makes " a prima facie showing of control" where he or she has " detai1(ed) the defendant' s conduct so as to persuade v. Tullar a COllrt that the defendant was a ' primar)T actor ' in the specific matter in qllestion Supp2d , 2010 (Briese Lichttechnik Vertriebs GmbH v. Langton see, Karabu Corp. v. Gitner 16 F. Sllpp. 2d 319 4615958 , at 3 (S. see generally, Glassman v Hyder 23 NY2d 354 , 362- 363 324 (S. 2010 WL 3218387 , at 4 Sllpp. B. Recycling LLC , 2008 - F. Supp. Barron Partners, LP v. Lab123 (E. cj, Kreutter v. McFadden Oil Corp. WL 2902187 , at 10- 11 (S. supra; Arroyo v. Mountain School 68 AD3d 603, 605). Y. 2010); 1998); v. (1968); Finkel , Inc., Y. 2010); 2008) While e"idence establishing that the existence of a " formal agenc)T relationship (Kreutter existed is not reqllired v. McFadden Oil Corp., supra; Barbarottolntern. bland" assertions of agenc)T wil not Glenn v. SBPartners LLC 20 AD3d 663 2008 WL 239524 , at 7 (Sllpreme COllrt, Nassall COllnt) 2008); Misc. Barron Partners, LP v. Finkel v. A. B. Recycling LLC 2010 WL 3218387 Karabu Corp. v. Gitner 16F. Sllpp. Lab123, Inc. 2008WL2902187 , at 10aft' 30 NY2d 757 (1972)). cj, Lamarr v. Klein at 323v. Sales Corp. sllffice Tullar , supra), inconclllsi"e or " , 664; (see, Polansky v Gelrod, , at 4; 11; 324 35 AD2d 248, d, Here , the credible e"idence before the COllrt establishes that the movants were not actors who exercised control , sllper"ision or an)T allthorit) o"er the manner in (Kimco Exchange which , and b)T whom 20 AD3d Place Corp. v. Thomas Benz, Inc. , the sllbject "ehicle was to be transported 34 AD3d 433; Polansky v Gelrod, [* 6] Page 6. RE: CALIFANO v. GAGO, et al. 663 , 664; J. E. T. Adv. Assoc. v Lawn King, 84 AD2d 744 , 745; Del Bello Japanese Steak House 43 AD2d 455 , 457). Rather , the record indicates in this respect that the "ehicle was acquired from an independentl)T operated , online allctioneer , Openlane, and then " automaticall)T shipped b)T that entit) to the online bidder (Colonial) for a prescribed fee. Openlane alone retained control o"er shipping process and was solel)T responsible for retaining the transporter truck which was to carry the "ehicle from its Brooklyn location to Colonial' s Massachllsetts offices. Colonial' s affiant on the motion has demonstrated in this respect that Colonial had the independent transporter , the dri"er who no inpllt into the selection of was to operate the transport or even the rOllte the dri"er was to take in making the 68 AD3d 1501 , 1502(Parsons v KalKan Food, inter alia, Inc., deli"er)T 1503; Polansky 20 AD3d at 664). To sllstain jllrisdiction llpon this tenllOUS basis wOllld argllabl)T sllbject nondomiciliary, internet pllrchasers , whose orders are deli"ered b)T third- part) carriers o"er whom the)T ha"e no real control , to personal jllrisdiction an)Twhere that carrier might later be in"ol"ed in an accident , largely because the prodllct being deli"ered happened to be ph)Tsicall)T present in the carrier s "ehicle when an accident OCCllrs. Gelrod, Absent an agenc)T relationship linking Colonial to A & N' s allegedl)T negligent between Colonial's business acti"it) (see generally, Johnson v Ward 4 NY3d at 519- 520). Indeed , the record belies the inference that Openlane bidding procedllres create a meaningful or sllbstantial neXllS to an)T specific jurisdiction. Rather , the evidence sllggests that any link to a specific jllrisdiction wOllld arise randoml)T and b)T " mere fortuit)'' - not throllgh volitional acts or b)T that 52 NY2d 268 , 272(McGowan v. an)T neXllS wOllld exist primarily b)T happenstance , based upon the coincidental location of whate"er "ehic1e satisfied the needs of Openlane s online , bidding (e. g., Milliken v. Holst 205 AD2d 508 , 509 cf, Johnson v Ward , supra; Executive Life Ltd. v. Silvermn 68 AD 3d 715, 717). operation of the transport , the neXllS , if an)T, and the State of New York is attenllated and remote pllrposeflll design cllstomers at the time a bid is accepted Smith, 273 (1981)), e., [* 7] Page 7. RE: CALIFANO v. GAGO, et al. Upon these facts , sllbstantiall)T a"ailng Openlane s nondomicilar)T bidders are not purposefull)T or benefits associated with a particular jllrisdiction Andrews v Modell 84 AD3d at 9 NY3d at 508submitting internet bids based llpon the attriblltes of a themselves of 509; (Ehrenfeld v. Bin Mahfouz, 844- 845) bllt rather merel)T stated "ehicle or model , which vehicle cOllld be located in an)T nllmber of jllrisdictions. According to Colonial , Openlane s online bidders do not e"en know for certain where the "ehicle they are bidding on is ph)Tsically located (Sllrdis Aff. " 5- 6). Indeed , the Nissan acqllired b)T Colonial cOllld just as readil)T ha"e been located in another , entirel)T different jurisdiction withollt altering the llnderl)Ting (Milliken v. Holst , 205 nature and import of the sllbject, online allction transaction AD2d at 509). Fllrthermore , the operati"e e"ent Ollt of which plaintiff's claim arose was the allegedl)T negligent operation of a motor "ehicle , which was then exiting the State of New York. The incident did not OCCllr in an)T relevant sense becallse a car acquired b)T Colonial in an online, allction happened to be present on a flatbed truck jllrisdiction n accident took place. is not jllstified where the relationship between the claim and transaction attenllated, " coincidental" or where defendants ' acti"ities are remote in their see (Johnson v Ward 4 NY3d at 519connection to the State of New McGowan v. Smith 52 NY2d Arroyo v. Mountain 84 AD3d at at 272Polansky v. 62 AD3d 23 , 2868 AD3d 603 20 AD3d 663 , 664- 665). in personam It is settled that the exercise of 520; York 9 NY3d at 509, fn 6; also, Ehrenfeld v. Bin Mahfouz, 844; Andrews v. Modell, 273 (1981); v. Copp , 605; School, 29; Ramirez, Gelrod, Lastl)T, and llpon the record established the presented , the COllrt agrees that need for fllrther disco"er)T plaintiff has not relating to the issue of personal jurisdiction , e"en llnder the less demanding e"identiaf) standards applicable to (see, Benijts By Copp v. Ramirez, 62 75 AD3d 826 see also 298 AD2d 301 302Taittinger, S. AD3d 23, 31HBK Master Fund L. Spartan Indus. 33 NY2d 463, 465A Better 85 AD3d 665 v. Troika Dialog USA CPLR 3212(fj). Chance, Inc. 70 AD3d 481 Design Corp. motions to dismiss pursllant to CPLR 3211(a)(8); , 830; Contractor Management Services, LLC, 32; 303; v. Edelman 466 (1974); Peterson 666; , Inc., 482 cf., Morgan ex rel. Hunt v. [* 8] RE: CALIFANO v. GAGO, et al. Page 8. The COllrt has considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and concludes that the)T are insllfficient to defeat defendants ' motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as interposed against them. Accordingl)T, defendants , Colonial Honda of Dartmollth , Colonial Automotive Grollp, Inc. and Gordon Che"rolet- GEO, Inc. , motion pllrsllant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) for an order dismissing the complaint against them is granted. The caption of this action is amended to read as follows: JACQUELINE D. CALIFANO as Administratrix of the Estate ofMICHAELJ. CALIFANO deceased , and JACQUELINE D. CALIFANO, iIlcli"iclllall)T , , Plaintiff -against - JOSE A. GAGO , JR. , NICOLE YATES, JOHN R. KALEY , A AND N AUTO SERVICE LLC , P. V. HOLDING CORP. , AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM , LLC, AVIS BUDGET GROUP , INC. , and COLONIAL CHEVRQLET OF ACTION Defendants. " The parties are reminded that a Preliminar)T Conference is scheduled to be held on September 26, 2011 , at 9:30 a. This decision constitutes the order of the COllrt. HON THOMS P. PHLAN Dated: \ ,1- 25 - ENTERED SEP 1 3 2011 NAHAUCOUNTY COUNTY CLER'. OFFICE [* 9] RE: CALIFANO v. GAGO, et al. Attorneys of Record Salenger Sack Schwartz & Kimmel , Esq. B)T: Pollack , Pollack , Isaac & DeCicco Att: Brian J. Isaac, Esq. Attorne)Ts for Plaintiffs 225 Broadwa)T, Sllite 307 New York , NY 10007 DeSena & Sweene)T, LLP Attn: Shawn P. 0' Shallghness)T, Esq. Attorne)Ts for Defendants Jose A. Gago , Jr. and Nicole Yates 1383 Veterans Memorial Highwa)T, Sllite 32 Hallppauge , NY 11788 Gallo Vitucci & Klar , LLP Attorne)Ts for Defendants John r. Kale)T and A and N Auto Ser"ice , LLC 90 Broad Street , 3rd Floor New York , NY 10004 Cascone & Killepfel , LLP Attorne)Ts for Defendants P. V. Holding Corp. A "is Rent A Car S)Tstem LLC and A "is Budget Grollop, Inc. 1399 Franklin A "enlle , Sllite 302 Garden Cit), NY 14202 Dw)Ter & Bernstein Att: M. Glad)Ts T. Oranga , Esq. Attorne)Ts for Defendants Colonial Honda of Dartmollth , Colonial Alltomoti"e Grollp, Inc. and Gordon Che"folet- Geo , Inc. 52 Dllane Street , 5th Floor New York , NY 10007 Page 9.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.