New York Fourth Department Win on Personal Jurisdiction in Benzene Case

The New York Fourth Department recently affirmed the personal jurisdiction of the State of New York over a defendant who sold adulterated petroleum products. In Ray Corp v. Total Petroleum, Inc., an action was brought by Ray Corp, a distributor of oils and other petroleum products, against Total Petroleum Inc., alleging that Total sold adulterated products.

The complaint alleged that Ray sent sample bottles of its oil to a laboratory to test its product’s purity and find out how much sodium chloride was present in the mixture. The laboratory determined that one bottle contained an oil with only 31 percent of its weight in chemicals required by law.[1]

The New York Fourth Department recently affirmed the personal jurisdiction of the State of New York over a defendant who sold adulterated petroleum products.

The New York Fourth Department recently affirmed the personal jurisdiction of the State of New York over a defendant who sold adulterated petroleum products.

The court found that the State had met its burden because it must prove both that it has specific jurisdiction over the defendants’ alleged acts and that those acts occurred within New York’s borders.

In Ray Corp v. Total Petroleum, Inc., an action was brought by Ray Corp, a distributor of oils and other petroleum products, against Total Petroleum Inc., alleging that Total sold adulterated products.

In Ray Corp v. Total Petroleum, Inc., an action was brought by Ray Corp, a distributor of oils and other petroleum products, against Total Petroleum Inc., alleging that Total sold adulterated products.

The court found that the plaintiff had standing to bring this suit because it had engaged in business in New York State for more than six months before filing its complaint and made sales within New York State during that period.

The Court also noted that even if it did not find any facts suggesting injury caused by the defendant’s acts, “there are situations where a court may still exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant based on some minimal contacts in its state with persons who could be injured by continuing misconduct there.”

The complaint alleged that Ray sent sample bottles of its oil to a laboratory to test its product’s purity and find out how much sodium chloride was present in the mixture.

The complaint alleged that Ray sent sample bottles of its oil to a laboratory to test its product’s purity and find out how much sodium chloride was present in the mixture.

The parties reached a settlement agreement that required Total Petroleum Inc., which also sold products under the name Total Oil, to pay $5 million as compensation for any damages it might incur as a result of being found liable for violating.

New York laws on personal jurisdiction over foreign companies based on allegations they had engaged in unfair competition with local distributors like Ray Corp.

The laboratory determined that one bottle contained an oil with only 31 percent of its weight in chemicals required by law.

In this case, the laboratory determined that one bottle contained an oil with only 31 percent of its weight in chemicals required by law. The State met its burden because it must prove both that it has specific jurisdiction over the defendants’ alleged acts and that those acts occurred within New York’s borders.

The court found that the State had met its burden because it must prove both that it has specific jurisdiction over the defendants’ alleged acts and that those acts occurred within New York’s borders.

The court found that the State had met its burden because it must prove both that it has specific jurisdiction over the defendants’ alleged acts and that those acts occurred within New York’s borders.

The first element of this test is whether there is a “substantial connection” between the defendant’s conduct and activities in New York. In this case, Benzene argued that none of its customers were involved with or even near any activity related to benzene production within New York state;

Therefore, no substantial connection existed between Benzene’s facilities and any alleged violations outside of New York. However, the court disagreed with Benzene on this point, finding that some actual involvement by customers was necessary for establishing personal jurisdiction over them under NY General Business Law § 349(3) Personal Jurisdiction.

A win for personal jurisdiction

The court found that the State had met its burden because it must prove both that it has specific jurisdiction over the defendants’ alleged acts and that those acts occurred within New York‘s borders. The court explained:

• The location of the alleged misconduct was clear: Benzene production took place in Pennsylvania, but since only one producer was subject to personal jurisdiction (and not all), New York’s case against him could be decided on its merits alone Personal Jurisdiction.
• Given these two elements, combined with a fact pattern at issue (e.g., production of benzene), there is sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact may find probable cause to support this cause of action under state law based upon finding the required elements necessary for holding each defendant responsible for causing harm by his conduct within New York state boundaries Personal Jurisdiction.*

Conclusion

The case is a win for personal jurisdiction over a defendant that sells adulterated products. The court found that the State of New York had met its burden because it must prove both that it has specific jurisdiction over the defendants’ alleged acts and that those acts occurred within New York‘s borders Personal Jurisdiction.