On September 26, 2024, the First Department issued a decision in Murray v. Stone, 2024 NY Slip Op. 04611, holding that injury from a commercial tort occurs where the misconduct occurred, not where the economic loss occurred, explaining:
New York does not have personal jurisdiction over defendants under CPLR 302(a)(3)(ii). In the context of a commercial tort, where the damage is solely economic, the situs of a commercial injury is where the original critical events associated with the action or dispute took place, not where any financial loss or damages occurred. The original critical events in this case were the alleged misrepresentations involving falsification of measurements, which occurred outside the United States, not the purported loss generated by reliance on the alleged misrepresentations. Thus, even assuming that the alleged misrepresentations caused plaintiffs to suffer economic loss in New York, that alone does not provide a sufficient basis for personal jurisdiction in this state.
Bangladesh Bank, upon which plaintiffs place much reliance, does not compel the result they seek, as we made clear in that case that the original critical events took place in New York. In Bangladesh Bank, we found that hackers sent payment orders directing the transfer of nearly $1 billion from plaintiff’s account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Thus, we found, the original situs of plaintiff’s alleged injury was fulfilling the fraudulent payment orders in New York. That is, the very act of stealing the funds from plaintiff’s NY Fed account and transferring them to the correspondent accounts in New York is the injury.
(Internal citations omitted).