Pira v Air & Liquid Sys. Corp.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Pira v Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. 2021 NY Slip Op 32863(U) December 27, 2021 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 190093/2020 Judge: Adam Silvera Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 03:56 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 240 INDEX NO. 190093/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY i I 1 PRESENT: HON. ADAM SILVERA PART 13 Justice I -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------X INDEX NO. 190093/2020 JOSEPH PIRA, AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE I I' OF GIACINTO PIRA AND MARIA PIRA, INDIVIDUALLY ' Plaintiff, MOTION DATE MOTION SEQ. NO. 06/24/2021 001 - V - ' I AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, AS SUCCESSOR: BY-MERGER TO BUFFALO PUMPS, INC, AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC , NIK/A RHONE POULENC AG COMPANY, NIK/A BAYER CROPSCIENCE INC, AMERICAN OPTICAL ! ·coRPORATION, BW/IP, INC. AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, CBS CORPORATION, F/K/A VIACOM INC, I _SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO CBS CORPORATION, F/K/A I WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP , CRANE CO, DCO LLC F/K/A DANA COMPANIES, LLC,ELECTROLUX HOME .PRODUCTS, INC. INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS SUCCESSOR TO iTAPPAN AND COPES-VULCAN, EMPIRE-ACE INSULATION MFG. CORP, FLOWSERVE US, INC. INDIVIDUALLY AND SUCCESSOR TO ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING ' COMPANY, EDWARD VALVE, INC., NORDSTROM VALVES, : INC, EDWARD VOGT VALVE COMPANY, AND VOGT I VALVE COMPANY, FMC CORP, ON BEHALF OF ITS 1 FORMER CHICAGO PUMP & NORTHERN PUMP I BUSINESSES, GARDNER DENVER, INC, GENERAL : ELECTRIC COMPANY, GOODYEAR CANADA, INC, , 'GOULDS PUMPS LLC,GUARD-LINE, INC, GUTHRIE DELAWARE, INC, HOBART BROTHERS COMPANY, : HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC , F/K/A ALLIED i SIGNAL, INC./ BENDIX, IMO INDUSTRIES, INC, ITT LLC., iNDIVIDUALL Y AND AS SUCCESSOR TO BELL & GOSSETT AND AS SUCCESSOR TO KENNEDY VALVE MANUFACTURING CO., INC, JENKINS BROS, MCCORD CORPORATION, MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, : MORSE TEC LLC,PFIZER, INC. (PFIZER), PREST-O-SALES i ~ SERVICES, INC, STEEL GRIP SAFETY APPAREL I COMPANY, INC, STEEL GRIP, INC.,STEEL GRIP, INC.,A/K/A 1VOORHEES, INC INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN:INTEREST TO STEEL GRIP SAFETY APPAREL COMPANY, INC, TENNECO AUTOMOTIVE OPERATING COMPANY INC, jfHE BOC GROUP, INC, THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY, U.S. RUBBER CO. (UNIROYAL), I UNION CARBIDE CORP., WARREN PUMPS, LLC, I I DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION 1 I I Defendant. '- !' i: 190093/2020 PIRA, GIACINTO vs. LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION 1Motion No. 001 1 of 5 Page 1 of 5 [*FILED: 2] I. NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 03:56 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 240 INDEX NO. 190093/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022 I '-------------------------------------------------------------------------------X I Third-Party Index No. 595297/2021 !STEEL GRIP, INC I Plaintiff, -againstTOURISTIC UNION INTERNATIONAL, AG, HAPAG-LLOYD !:!CRUISES, A TUI CRUISES GMBH COMPANY Defendant. ! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- X IThe following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 1100, 101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,114,118,119,120,122,123 ,were read on this motion to/for DISMISS I I Upon the foregoing documents, it is ordered that defendant Steel Grip, Inc. 's motion to ~ismiss and plaintiffs cross-motion seeking jurisdictional discovery is decided below. In this lbestos action, moving defendant seeks to dismiss the complaint against it arguing that it has no I, !c~nnection to New York such that the C~urt has no personal jurisdiction over it. Plaintiff I I o'pposes and files a cross-motion seeking jurisdictional discovery. Defendant Steel Grip opposes the cross-motion. I. Moving defendant seeks to dismiss this action arguing that it did not sell, distribute, or '.manufacture any products in the State of New York, and that plaintiffs alleged exposure to 'asbestos occurred solely on Italian cruise ships. Defendant Steel Grip further argues that it is not I I incorporated in New York, does not have its headquarters in New York, nor does it have its' I• 'principal place of business in New York, such that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over it I pursuant to CPLR §302(a). Thus, according to moving defendant, the instant action must be 1 '. ~·ismissed as against it. I I ! In opposition, plaintiff proffers, interalia, plaintiffGiacinto Pira's deposition transcript 1. I. ,190093/2020 PIRA, GIACINTO vs. LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION Motion No. 001 i' 2 of 5 Page 2 of 5 [*FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 03:56 PM NYSCEF DOC.; NO. 240 INDEX NO. 190093/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022 I I \ri which he testifies that the asbestos containing gloves he used, and which exposed him to ~bestos, were purchased in New York. Plaintiff further testified that he saw boxes of such 1:oves being loaded onto ships in New York and that the ship had supplies in New York. I' II f!aintiff contends that personal jurisdiction has been established, or alternatively requests , : jJrisdictional discovery. To find personal jurisdiction, the Court must determine whether it has general or specific I' jurisdiction over the moving defendant. New York's general jurisdiction statute CPLR §301 and I t~e long arm statute CPLR §302(a) govern jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary defendant. As to I' ' general jurisdiction pursuant to CPLR §30 I, it must be established that a defendant's "affiliations 1ith the State [of! New York are so continuous and systematic as to render it essentially at home i' iri the ... State". Robins v Procure Treatment Ctrs .. Inc., 157 AD3d 606,607 (Pt Dep't I, 2018)(intemal brackets and citations omitted). "Aside from an exceptional case, a corporation is 1t home only in a state that is the company's place of incorporation or its principal place of I. · II business". Lowy v Chalkable, LLC, 186 AD3d 590, 592 (2 nd Dep't 2020)(intemal quotations and I' I. titations omitted). The relevant inquiry regarding a corporate defendant's place of incorporation lhd principal place of business, is at the time the action is commenced. See Lancaster v Colonial I, Motor Freight Line, Inc., 177 AD2d 152, 156 ( I st Dep't 1992). The Court notes that defendant I. i Steel Grip has established, and it is uncontested, that its principal place of business is outside the I Mate of New York and that it is not a resident of this state. It is further uncontested that moving I. 1efendant was not incorporated in New York State such that personal jurisdiction may not be ttablished based upon the residence of the moving defendant. ! I ' I. t I As for long arm jurisdiction, CPLR §302(a) states that specific jurisdiction may be over a non-resident who"( I) transacts any business within the state or contracts 6~ercised . . ~ ;'' I 190093/2020 PIRA, GIACINTO vs. LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION 1 , Motion No. 001 3 of 5 Page 3 of 5 [*FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 03:56 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 240 INDEX NO. 190093/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022 I· I I I' I anywhere to supply goods or services in the state; or (2) commits a tortious act within the !rate ... ; or (3) commits. a tort1ous . . tnJUry . . . h.tn the act Wit. hout t hestate causmg to person ... Wit ? liate ... if he (i) regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of I bonduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in the ltate, or (ii) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and I derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce; or (4) owns, uses or I. bossesses real property situated within the state.'' Here, evidence has been presented to i~monstrate that defendant Steel Grip did, in fact, have contact with the state. In reply, defendant Steel Grip argues that the alleged contacts with the State of New I; Xork, as raised in the opposition papers, fail to sufficiently tie moving defendant to the state. ! According to moving defendant, its headquarters was not situated in New York State and the I I I, illeged contacts raised by plaintiff did not establish a substantial nexus between moving I defendant and plaintiffs cause of action. As to jurisdictional discovery, moving defendant argues I. I that plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to establish that defendant Steel Grip was engaged in I. pi.lrposefu I activity in New York State. However, such argument is belied by the testimony of b1aintiff which stated that the Italian cruise ships routinely made stops in New York, had supplies I, iri New York, and sold the asbestos containing gloves in New York. Thus, plaintiff has provided ' . J~fficient evidence to demonstrate that jurisdictional discovery is needed herein. As such, I. ~laintiffs cross-motion is granted and defendant Steel Grip's motion to dismiss is denied I i without prejudice to renew at the conclusion of discovery. I· Accordingly, it is ' ORDERED that defendant Steel Grip's motion to dismiss the complaint is denied without 1• Jfejudice to renew at the conclusion of discovery; and it is further I I 190093/2020 PIRA, GIACINTO vs. LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION 1Motion No. 001 i' 4 of 5 Page 4 of 5 [*FILED: 5] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/05/2022 03:56 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 240 INDEX NO. 190093/2020 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/05/2022 ORDERED that plaintiffs cross-motion for jurisdictional discovery is granted; and it is further I ORDERED that within 30 days of entry, plaintiff shall serve a copy of this decision/order ~pon all parties with notice of entry. I· I t : ' This constitutes the Decision/Order of the Court. 12/27/2021 DATE ·CHECK ONE: I I APPLICATION: ] bHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ~ CASE DISPOSED GRANTED • 0 DENIED NAL DISPOSITION GRANTED IN PART SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT 0 • OTHER REFERENCE I 190093/2020 PIRA, GIACINTO vs. LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION l'Motion No. 001 5 of 5 Page5of 5

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.