Gore v. Griffith Realty Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that employer purposefully availed itself of the forum “when they hired plaintiff 38 R. Doc. 23-3. 39 R. Doc. 3-6. to conduct their marketing and communications while she lived in Brooklyn”
• asserting personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendant, who “hired her knowing that she would live and work in Brooklyn [New York]”
• “Although the Supreme Court's recent decisions concerning general jurisdiction have focused on corporate entities, the same analysis obviously applies to individuals transacting business in a forum state.”
• “[T]here is a ‘substantial relationship’ between the [remote] work plaintiff alleges she undertook for defendants and her claims in this suit, which arise out of her termination by defendants.”
• personal jurisdiction established under CPLR § 302(a)(1) when nondomiciliary defendants hired employee who worked in New York, sent her emails instructing her solicitation of clients, and paid her a commission
• “While defendants may not have sought a unique benefit when they transacted business in New York, they nevertheless ‘availed’ themselves of the forum when they hired plaintiff to conduct their marketing and communications while she lived in Brooklyn[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).