Majority
The motion court erred in concluding that it had personal jurisdiction over respondent simply because the arbitration occurred in New York and respondent never contested the arbitrator’s jurisdiction. Respondent, a Pennsylvania corporation that had insured the offending vehicle, has no contacts with New York, and the offending vehicle was neither registered in New York nor owned by a New York resident (see Matter of American Tr. Ins. Co. v Hoque, 45 AD3d 329 , 329 [1st Dept 2007]; Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Basedow, 28 AD3d 766 , 767 [2d Dept 2006]). Accordingly, the motion court lacked personal jurisdiction over respondent.
We have considered petitioner’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Concur — Renwick, J.P., Andrias, Saxe and Richter, JJ.
Cases cited
- American Transit Insurance v. Hoque 45 AD3d 329 at 329 p. 552
- Government Employees Insurance v. Basedow 28 AD3d 766 at 767 p. 552