[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6533714,"mediaKeyId","3674390-0df637b33bf717aa0e7da5118ec83838","parentId",3674390,"title","Assembly passes bill to confirm New York courts’ general jurisdiction over businesses that register here","audioSeconds",520,"startMs",2616000,"endMs",2096000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3674390-0df637b33bf717aa0e7da5118ec83838&start=2616&end=2096","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3674390-0df637b33bf717aa0e7da5118ec83838/thumbnail_2616000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6533714/New-York/Assembly-passes-bill-to-confirm-New-York-courts-general-jurisdiction-over-businesses-that-register-here","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6533714-b41c8ef892c8290e66d7f47b3c02c209/orig.mp4?Expires=1775722745&Signature=lyI3QQ5WzOmyDYVVyrpiMbRwkS7~zd71ettqCC3j63Tpx~AounqzH-2EyyW9L~GfmzjDizI7Fovdw3xlLnQJDfCN0Outg8pi8cUHc5dyM3ZfYW~t4nP6vbBanh3J9dELUpPugwdXWARqtHeihmzD-gIBXWN1drFGRWi9yRRYBItsGRXYIXPGaI3T6rW2J3i4l30W-suSSg3ICXrcseIB4DmvCvmKpyL2vY9xus5gY4wIX-xGWk4ALqOvJiaOsm40yhJlykvXkPqCwylq4TycGDI-C77zt9pR8xJtbi~QHCFxFuSnAJxQFEzpWyWd7cyr7fRInPM-6QPfpHt9YmWo5g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New York Legislature","date","2025-06-04T00:00:00Z","article","Assemblymember Lunsford sponsored and the Assembly passed A.8303, an amendment to New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules, clarifying that corporations, limited liability companies and other entities that register with the New York Secretary of State to do business in New York “consent” to general jurisdiction in New York courts. The Assembly recorded 99 ayes and 46 noes; the bill passed and \"This act shall take effect January 1,\" the clerk read, with no year specified in the floor text.

Supporters said the bill restores the state’s longstanding practice before federal cases narrowed general jurisdiction. \"This bill is actually relatively simple,\" Lunsford told the Assembly, saying the change returns New York law to its pre‑Daimler approach and reflects recent U.S. Supreme Court guidance such as Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway. Lunsford said the statute limits potential plaintiffs to those with a nexus to New York — residents, New York‑domiciled businesses, or foreign businesses registered here — and, she said, that approach had governed New York for more than a century.

Opponents raised concerns that the change could encourage forum shopping and discourage companies from registering in New York. One Assembly member arguing against the bill said it \"encourages forum shopping\" and warned it could \"drive opportunities to neighboring states with more predictable jurisdictional rules.\" He argued the change may increase litigation and impose further burdens on the State court system, which he and others said already report backlogs and resource constraints during budget hearings.

During floor exchanges, Lunsford and questioning members discussed precedent and constitutional limits. The sponsor cited Mallory v. Norfolk (Supreme Court) and other precedent, and referenced International Shoe and Daimler in explaining how New York courts previously exercised general jurisdiction. Questioners asked whether the bill would allow New York residents to sue businesses for claims wholly unrelated to New York conduct and whether businesses could avoid jurisdiction simply by declining to register; Lunsford confirmed the bill would permit suits brought by residents or New York‑domiciled businesses against companies that have registered to do business here, even when the alleged injuries occurred outside New York, and noted the law expressly allows withdrawal of consent by deregistration.

Supporters argued the bill clarifies the State’s intent after the Daimler decision and said New York courts and litigants benefit from clear statutory direction. Opponents — including members who called for a party vote — pointed to prior gubernatorial vetoes of similar measures and warned the bill could chill business formation and registration in New York. Assemblymember Walsh announced the conference would vote in the negative citing prior votes in 2021 and 2023 and two previous gubernatorial vetoes; Assemblymember People Stokes said the Democratic conference would support the bill overall.

The clerk announced the vote totals: \"Ayes, 99; No's, 46.\" The bill was declared passed on the floor.

Key procedural notes and context recorded on the floor: sponsors and questioners repeatedly referenced federal cases (Mallory v. Norfolk Southern, Daimler, International Shoe) and a prior state practice; sponsors and opponents cited concerns about court workload and the business climate. The bill sponsor said the change would reestablish jurisdiction for roughly 400 companies that are registered to do business in New York according to the sponsor’s memo. The Assembly also noted that the bill had been vetoed previously and had substantial opposition in prior years.

The floor text supplied no statutory citation number beyond amending the Civil Practice Law and Rules. The clerk read the bill's effective provision saying it \"shall take effect January 1,\" without specifying the year in the on‑floor reading.

Votes at a glance and related procedural votes for this bill were recorded on the Assembly floor during the same session.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","New York Legislature - 6-4-25 Session Part 3 - Jun 04, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Assemblymember Lunsford sponsored and the Assembly passed A.8303, an amendment to New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules, clarifying that corporations, limited liability companies and other entities that register with the New York Secretary of State to do business in New York “consent” to general jurisdiction in New York courts.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature NY, New York","taxId",77685,"location","New York","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6533709,"Votes at a glance: Assembly adopts multiple resolutions and approves several recalled bills",1222,2112000,3334000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3674390-0df637b33bf717aa0e7da5118ec83838&start=2112&end=3334","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3674390-0df637b33bf717aa0e7da5118ec83838/thumbnail_2112000.jpg","/articles/6533709/New-York/Votes-at-a-glance-Assembly-adopts-multiple-resolutions-and-approves-several-recalled-bills","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6533709-9639306e128429baafbb607e4639fbf0/orig.mp4?Expires=1775722745&Signature=Y7gkYQwiBAz-kP9O-nnOircEalqQwNBiX9sRXlg1RPxA2kq36gkBTok0fAjeeslTtRIxvyWEAFMAkqSC93z5g9AbtUFkUDasNVwsl7ZsZyMuDI8gp4AWocoPXN5N5cT2SXPsDlB9SkWTY2vCV33zOaWnwZJ1p5uoa8iK6aRMMLoCPcnZMlOM6cIEwFvqgS82Cb-90FGqgw1WFAMnXTnW4IybEcaMj3met8pa6JszCCE3bzsy4Iex~7UMxmR-GotsZ0deOX7VedK3H32qw6MlzClR~r2AUdNRIE0R1rfoP9A0vjM0PPEgQ14CttAllX4oP2bykPwC8QEeVfsZwCWYKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Following passage of A.8303, the Assembly considered a series of ceremonial legislative resolutions and several recalled bills and amendments. Several memorializing resolutions were adopted by voice vote; those resolutions request the governor to proclaim awareness/recognition days or months (examples read on the floor include Assembly Nos. 628 through 642: human milk day (05/19/2025), SIDS/SIDS‑type awareness month entries such as June 2025 proclamations, farmers market appreciation month, gay pride month, reunification month, and others). The clerk announced each resolution and the Assembly adopted them by voice vote.

The floor also recorded procedural votes on recalled bills and amendments. The clerk recorded roll calls on motions to reconsider and adopt amendments for several recalled bills with recorded tallies of \"Ayes 145, Noes 0.\" Those items (read on behalf of various sponsors) included bills described on the floor as amending the insurance law, the arts and cultural affairs law, part P of chapter 39 of the laws of 2019, the election law, and others (sample assembly bill identifiers read: A.6652‑A, A.7033‑B, A.88069, A.7618‑A). The clerk announced the results and said \"The bill is before the house, and the amendments are received and adopted\" for each of those items after the 145–0 roll calls.

Select items recorded on the floor (as read by the clerk and adopted):
- Assembly Resolution A.628 — memorializing the governor to proclaim May 19, 2025, as Human Milk Day (adopted by voice vote).
- Assembly Resolution A.629 — memorializing the governor to proclaim June 2025 as [text read on floor] (adopted by voice vote).
- Assembly Resolution A.632 — proclaiming June 2025 as Gay Pride Month (sponsored remarks by Miss Glick were entered on the floor) (adopted by voice vote).
- Recalled bill A.6652‑A (amend Insurance Law) — motion to reconsider and adoption recorded Ayes 145, Noes 0; amendments received and adopted.
- Recalled bill A.7033‑B (amend Arts and Cultural Affairs Law) — motion to reconsider and adoption recorded Ayes 145, Noes 0; amendments received and adopted.
- Recalled bill A.7618‑A (amend Election Law) — motion to reconsider and adoption recorded Ayes 145, Noes 0; amendments received and adopted.

The Assembly then adopted a number of additional resolutions without objection and adjourned to reconvene at 10 a.m. on the date announced by the Speaker pro tempore.

These floor minutes record adoptions by voice vote for memorializing resolutions and recorded roll calls (145–0) for motions to reconsider and adopt amendments on the recalled bills noted above. Where the clerk announced only voice adoption, no recorded roll‑call tally was provided in the transcript.","On the same floor day the Assembly passed A.8303, members also adopted multiple legislative resolutions by voice vote and recorded procedural votes on several bills recalled from the Senate; recorded roll calls on reconsideration and amendment motions were 145–0 in several instances.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Assembly passes bill to confirm New York courts’ general jurisdiction over businesses that register here

Votes at a glance: Assembly adopts multiple resolutions and approves several recalled bills