Supreme Court, Kings County

Decided on May 8, 2026

Index No. 506245/2025

Aaron D. Maslow, J.

[*1]

The following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF Doc Nos.:

Notice of Motion/Order to Show Cause/ Petition/

Cross Motion and Affidavits (Affirmations) Annexed 60 62-69, 70-73, 114-117

Opposing Affidavits (Affirmations) 74-87, 89-102, 121

Affidavits/Affirmations in Reply 106-107, 108-110, 111-113, 123

Great Dane's Memorandum of Law 61

Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition 88, 103

Great Dane's Reply Memorandum of Law 105

Upon the foregoing papers, in this action by plaintiffs Elvira Portillo (Portillo), individually and as the legal guardian of JSP (JSP), and Julieta Hernandez Enriquez (Enriquez) (collectively, plaintiffs) against defendants Mansur Jorayev (Jorayev), LEF Trucking Company, LLC (LEF), Daimler Truck North America LLC (DTNA), Detroit Diesel Corporation (Detroit Diesel), and Great Dane LLC (Great Dane) (collectively, defendants) to recover damages for personal injuries, Great Dane moves, under motion sequence number three, for an order, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8),^FN1 CPLR 302, and CPLR 327 (a), dismissing plaintiffs' amended complaint as against it in its entirety, based on the grounds that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over it, and that this action, in the interests of substantial justice, should be heard in another forum, and granting it any other relief that the court deems just and proper (NYSCEF Doc No. 60).

DTNA and Detroit Diesel move, under motion sequence number four, for an order dismissing plaintiffs' amended complaint as against them, pursuant to CPLR 327 (a), and permitting them to join the motion to dismiss brought by Great Dane based on forum non conveniens, and granting them such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper (NYSCEF Doc No. 70).

Jorayev and LEF move, under motion sequence number five, for an order dismissing plaintiffs' amended complaint as against them based on the ground that this action, in the interests of substantial justice, should be heard in another forum pursuant to CPLR 327 (a) (NYSCEF Doc No. 114).

Facts and Procedural Background

Plaintiffs are residents of Hendersonville, North Carolina. On August 18, 2023, Portillo was driving her 2008 Honda Civic on Interstate 85 eastbound in Alamance County, North Carolina with JSP (who is her daughter) and Enriquez as passengers. Enriquez was seated in the front passenger seat and JSP was seated in the rear passenger side seat.

Jorayev, during the scope of his employment with LEF, a business entity located in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, was the driver of a tractor-trailer owned by LEF. Jorayev was driving eastbound on Interstate 85 in the left-hand middle lane directly to the left of Portillo's Honda vehicle when he made an unsafe lane change to the right directly into the lane occupied by Portillo's Honda vehicle, and his tractor collided with her vehicle in her lane. Plaintiffs allege that the tractor-trailer that Jorayev was driving was comprised of a 2023 Freightliner Cascadia commercial truck manufactured by DTNA, pulling a 2017 trailer, which was manufactured and distributed by Great Dane.

The collision between the DTNA tractor and Portillo's Honda vehicle caused the [*2]Honda vehicle to leave the roadway to the right and strike a guardrail. Following the collision with the guardrail, Portillo's Honda vehicle deflected back to the left into the right lanes of travel on Interstate 85, and collided with the right side of Great Dane's trailer. In this collision, Portillo's Honda vehicle underrode the Great Dane trailer and the structure of the trailer intruded into the occupant compartment of Portillo's Honda vehicle.

Plaintiffs claim that defendants were negligent in the accident. Plaintiffs further claim that the crash avoidance technology with which the tractor was equipped, and which was manufactured and distributed by DTNA and Detroit Diesel, was defective because it did not properly warn Jorayev of the presence of a vehicle in his blind spot in the right lane. Plaintiffs also claim that the trailer manufactured and distributed by Great Dane was defective because it failed to include side underride protection, which would have minimized intrusion of the trailer into the occupant compartment. Plaintiffs sustained serious personal injuries in the accident.

On February 21, 2025, plaintiffs filed this action against defendants (NYSCEF Doc No. 1). Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges a first cause of action for negligence against all defendants, a second cause of action for vicarious liability against LEF for Jorayev's negligence, a third cause of action for strict products liability against DTNA, Detroit Diesel, and Great Dane, and a fourth^FN2 cause of action for breach of warranty against DTNA, Detroit Diesel, and Great Dane (NYSCEF Doc No. 4).

On December 1, 2025, Great Dane filed its motion to dismiss, under motion sequence number three (NYSCEF Doc No. 60). On December 12, 2025, DTNA and Detroit Diesel filed their motion to dismiss, under motion sequence number four (NYSCEF Doc No. 70). On January 15, 2026, Jorayev and LEF filed their motion to dismiss, under motion sequence number five (NYSCEF Doc No. 114).

Discussion

In support of its motion, under motion sequence number three, Great Dane sets forth that it is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. It has submitted the affirmation of Daniel Carter, its director of product safety and compliance (NYSCEF Doc No. 62). Daniel Carter affirms that Great Dane has no offices, employees, property, or bank accounts in the State of New York, and does not design, manufacture, or test any of its products in the State of New York. He explains that the trailer that was involved in the North Carolina accident at issue in this litigation was designed in Georgia, Illinois, and Indiana, was manufactured in Indiana, and was sold by Great Dane to an independently owned and operated dealer in Wisconsin. He further explains that while Great Dane has relationships with three authorized independent dealerships in New York, none of those dealerships are owned or operated by Great Dane, and the trailer at issue was not distributed by or through any of those dealerships. He states that Great Dane did not design, manufacture, or distribute the Freightliner tractor at issue or the crash avoidance [*3]technology that is the subject of plaintiffs' claims.

Great Dane asserts that the only connection that New York has to this litigation is that Jorayev, the driver of the tractor-trailer, is a resident of Kings County. Furthermore, since the accident occurred in North Carolina, the relevant nonparty witnesses, including law enforcement and first responders, are all located in North Carolina. Great Dane has submitted the affidavits of 14 nonparty witnesses who have attested that it would be a significant inconvenience and hardship for them to be compelled to provide testimony or appear at any trial or proceeding in New York, which is 500 miles or more from their homes, jobs, and families in North Carolina (NYSCEF Doc No. 64).

Great Dane also contends that the court should dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint against it for lack of personal jurisdiction. A New York court may not exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary unless the action is permissible under the long-arm statute and the exercise of jurisdiction comports with due process (see World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v Woodson, 444 US286, 291 [1980]; Williams v Beemiller, Inc., 33 NY3d 523, 528 [2019]; LaMarca v Pak-Mor Mfg. Co., 95 NY2d 210, 214 [2000]). "Although a plaintiff is not required to plead and prove personal jurisdiction in the complaint . . . , where jurisdiction is contested, the ultimate burden of proof rests upon the plaintiff" (Mejia-Haffner v Killington, Ltd., 119 AD3d 912, 914 [2d Dept 2014]). "If either the statutory or constitutional prerequisite is lacking, the action may not proceed" (Williams, 33 NY3d at 528).

New York courts have neither general jurisdiction nor specific jurisdiction over Great Dane in this matter. New York courts lack general jurisdiction over Great Dane because Great Dane, which as previously noted, is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Illinois, is not "at home" in New York (see Daimler AG v Bauman, 571 US 117, 137-138 [2014]; Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v Brown, 564 US 915, 919 [2011]). Great Dane also has not consented to general jurisdiction in New York (see Aybar v Aybar, 37 NY3d 274, 289-291 [2021]). Plaintiffs do not dispute that Great Dane is not "at home" in New York, and, therefore, is not subject to general jurisdiction under CPLR 301.

New York courts also lack specific jurisdiction over Great Dane under CPLR 302 and the due process clause. Specific jurisdiction "permits a court to exercise jurisdiction only where the suit arises out of or relates to the defendant's contacts with the forum state" (Aybar, 37 NY3d at 288-289). Here, plaintiffs' claims do not arise from any in-state conduct by Great Dane. Rather, plaintiffs' claims against Great Dane, as discussed above, are for negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty, arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred in North Carolina involving a trailer that was designed and manufactured by Great Dane in Georgia, Illinois, and Indiana, and was subsequently sold by Great Dane to an independently owned and operated dealer in Wisconsin. In order to establish specific personal jurisdiction, "[t]here must be a substantial relationship between the transaction and the claim asserted" (Fischbarg v Doucet, 9 NY3d 375, 380 [2007]). Plaintiffs' amended complaint does not allege that Great Dane engaged in tortious activity in New York, caused an injury in New York, or owns property in New York. Plaintiffs' allegations relate to CPLR 302 (a) (1), which provides for jurisdiction only where a nondomiciliary "transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state." [*4]Plaintiffs, however, do not dispute that Great Dane's activities relating to the trailer's design, development, testing, and sale bear no relationship whatsoever to New York.

While plaintiffs argue that Great Dane has three authorized full-line dealerships in New York, they concede that the subject trailer was not sold at any of those New York dealerships. Furthermore, although plaintiffs claim that Great Dane markets, sells, and services, within the State of New York, the same trailers with the same design that they allege was the cause of their injuries during the subject crash, this would be insufficient to support personal jurisdiction in this case involving injuries suffered by nonresident plaintiffs based on incidents occurring outside of New York (see Ford Motor Co. v Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 US 351, 369 [2021]; Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v Superior Ct. of Cal., San Francisco County, 582 US 255, 265-266[2017]). Any alleged sale of other vehicles in New York has no bearing on personal jurisdiction under these circumstances because plaintiffs' claims do not arise from or relate in any way to other trailers.

While plaintiffs contend that if the court finds that they have failed to make a prima facie showing as to specific personal jurisdiction over Great Dane under the New York long-arm statute, it should defer its ruling and allow them a period of time to conduct jurisdictional discovery, they have not made any "sufficient start" or identified any evidence indicating that Great Dane's activities in New York were related to the North Carolina accident or the trailer in any way (see Mejia-Haffner v Killington, Ltd., 119 AD3d 912, 915 [2d Dept 2014]). Plaintiffs admit that the trailer was not designed, manufactured, or sold in New York. Plaintiffs have not alleged facts which would support personal jurisdiction under either CPLR 301 or under CPLR 302 (a) (1), and thus have failed to indicate how further discovery might lead to evidence showing that personal jurisdiction exists here (see Ovaskainen v Ovaskainen, 244 AD3d 492, 493 [1st Dept 2025]; Mejia-Haffner, 119 AD3d at 915). Thus, plaintiffs' amended complaint must be dismissed as against Great Dane based on a lack of personal jurisdiction against it (see CPLR 3211 [a] [8]).

Additionally, the doctrine of forum non conveniens further warrants dismissal of this action. "New York courts are not compelled to retain jurisdiction over any case which does not have a substantial nexus to New York" (Turay v Beam Bros. Trucking, Inc., 61 AD3d 964, 965 [2d Dept 2009]). "The doctrine of forum non conveniens, which embodies this principle, is codified in CPLR 327 (a)" (id. at 966). CPLR 327 (a) provides that "[w]hen the court finds that in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum, the court, on the motion of any party, may stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just." It further provides that even "[t]he domicile or residence in this state of any party to the action shall not preclude the court from staying or dismissing the action."

"On a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens, the burden is on the movant to demonstrate the relevant private or public interest factors that militate against a New York court's acceptance of the litigation" (Turay, 61 AD3d at 966; see also Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]; Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d 735, 736 [2d Dept 2007]). "Among the factors to be considered by the court are the burden on the New York court, the residence of the parties, the place where the accident occurred, the location of evidence and nonparty witnesses, the [*5]potential hardship to the defendants, and the availability of an alternative forum, with no one factor being dispositive" (Brinson v Chrysler Fin., 43 AD3d 846, 848 [2d Dept 2007]; see also Islamic Republic of Iran, 62 NY2d at 479; Jackam v Nature's Bounty, Inc., 70 AD3d 1000, 1001 [2d Dept 2010]; Sarfaty v Rainbow Helicopters, 221 AD2d 618, 620 [2d Dept 1995]). These factors weigh against retaining this action in New York.

Plaintiffs are all residents of North Carolina, which is an important factor weighing against retention of this action in New York (Economos v Zizikas, 18 AD3d 392, 393 [1st Dept 2005]; Mensah v Moxley, 235 AD2d 910, 911 [3d Dept 1997]). Great Dane is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois; DTNA is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Portland, Oregon; Detroit Diesel is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan; and LEF is an Ohio limited liability company with its principal place of business in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. The only connection to New York is Jorayev's residence in Kings County, which is not dispositive to a forum non conveniens analysis (see Turay, 61 AD3d at 966).

The place of the accident, the evidence related to it, and the relevant nonparty witnesses are all located in North Carolina, not in New York. As discussed above, Great Dane has identified 14 nonparty witnesses, consisting of seven first responders from the North Carolina fire departments who responded to and investigated the accident; fivemembers of the North Carolina Highway Patrol who responded to and investigated the accident; and two eyewitnesses to the accident. All of these 14 nonparty witnesses reside in North Carolina, and their testimony will be highly relevant to the issues in this action, including their firsthand information concerning the collision at issue. Each of these important witnesses has submitted an affidavit, attesting that it would be a significant inconvenience and hardship for them if they were required to appear to provide testimony at a trial or otherwise appear at an action in New York (NYSCEF Doc No. 64).^FN3

In addition, since plaintiffs sustained significant injuries in the accident, and, as North Carolina residents who were involved in an accident in North Carolina, presumably received, and may be continuing to receive, medical treatment in North Carolina, there are likely to be additional witnesses in North Carolina, whose identities are not currently known to Great Dane. Furthermore, the roadway and the accident location itself in Alamance County, North Carolina may constitute important physical evidence that applies to the circumstances of the accident.

Plaintiffs' argument that Great Dane has not shown that the North Carolina witnesses possess testimony material to the strict products liability claims asserted against it is rejected. [*6]The eyewitness accounts of the North Carolina accident, which can be provided by these witnesses, are relevant to the issue of whether a side underride guard could have prevented the accident or mitigated plaintiffs' injuries.

Plaintiffs further argue that the North Carolina witnesses do not have to be present in New York because their depositions can be taken remotely via video-teleconference. However, given the absence of a sufficient nexus to New York, Great Dane should not be deprived of having live depositions and being able to present live witnesses at trial.

Given the lack of a relationship to this New York forum, the burden on New York courts far outweighs New York's interest in resolving this dispute (see Turay, 61 AD3d at 966-967). While the absence of a suitable alternative forum does not require the court to retain jurisdiction, plaintiffs have failed to establish that no alternative forum exists (see Islamic Republic of Iran, 62 NY2d at 483). Thus, the court finds that dismissal pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens is warranted. Great Dane's motion is, therefore, granted (see CPLR 327).^FN4

DTNA and Detroit Diesel, in motion sequence number four, have similarly moved for dismissal of plaintiffs' amended complaint as against them pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. As discussed above, DTNA is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Portland Oregon, and Detroit Diesel is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan. DTNA and Detroit Diesel raise the same arguments as Great Dane and adopt the facts and legal arguments submitted by Great Dane in support of its motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 327(a). Plaintiffs have submitted the same opposition papers as to DTNA and Detroit Diesel as they have submitted with respect to Great Dane (NYSCEF Doc Nos. 89, 103). Consequently, the court finds that dismissal of this action as against DTNA and Detroit Diesel, pursuant to CPLR 327 (a), should be granted.

LEF and Jorayev, in motion sequence number five, have also moved for dismissal of plaintiffs' amended complaint as against them pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. As previously noted, LEF is a limited liability company located in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, and Jorayev is a resident of New York. They assert that this action should be dismissed against them on forum non conveniens grounds because the forum with the greatest nexus to this action is North Carolina and based upon the hardship to the North Carolina nonparty witnesses.

Plaintiffs raise the same opposition arguments against LEF and Jorayevthat they [*7]raised against Great Dane.^FN5 Dismissal of plaintiffs' amended complaint as against LEF and Jorayev, pursuant to CPLR 327 (a), based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, is, therefore, granted.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Great Dane's motion, under motion sequence number three, DTNA and Detroit Diesel's motion, under motion sequence number four, and LEF and Jorayev's motion, under motion sequence number five, are granted. Plaintiff's amended complaint is dismissed.

Any issue raised and not addressed in this decision and order is denied.

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.