Taneka v Northeastern Philadelphia Transit Authority FIRAC Scenario

The Northeastern Philadelphia Transit Authority (NEPTA) is a regional public transportation authority that has its principal place of business at 1234 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. NEPTA operates bus, rapid transit, commuter light rail, trains, and electric trolleybus services for nearly 4 million people in five counties in and around Philadelphia, PA.
NEPTA also provides commuter rail service to Delaware and New Jersey. NEPTA trains and buses do not serve New York state, but NEPTA does sell transit tickets from a New Jersey Transit window at New York’s Penn Station in New York City, NY.
Haru Taneka is a 55-year-old resident of New York City, who does not speak English. On August 20, 2019, he boarded a NEPTA train in Philadelphia traveling to Claymont, Delaware. Taneka claims that when he reached his destination, the train was leaning to one side, resulting in a dangerous gap between the train and the platform. As he tried to step from the train over the gap to the platform, Taneka said he fell onto the platform and dislocated his right wrist. Taneka claims that as a result of his injuries, he needed two surgeries and had to leave his job as a sushi chef.
In February 2020, Taneka sued NEPTA in New York state court. His complaint alleges that NEPTA was negligent in operating its commuter train from Philadelphia to Claymont, Delaware, resulting in his wrist injuries, his medical expenses and his loss of income. NEPTA moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the NY trial court where Taneka filed his lawsuit lacked personal jurisdiction over NEPTA, an out-of-state defendant.
Section 302 of New York Consolidated Laws, Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR 302) is the state’s long-arm statute, which grants New York courts personal jurisdiction over non-residents (called non-domiciliaries in the statute) for certain specified acts, specifically where a non-domiciled defendant
1. transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state;  or
2. commits a tortious act within the state, except as to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act;  or
3. commits a tortious act outside the state causing injury to person or property within the state … if he
(i) regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in the state, or
(ii) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce; …
You are the judge of the NY state trial court assigned to this case. How do you rule on NEPTA’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction?
FIRAC Paper Directions:
While this paper raises many potential legal issues, I want you to concentrate exclusively on whether a New York state court has personal jurisdiction over NEPTA, an out-of-state transit company. You'll find all the legal rules you need to analyze the scenario in my lectures and other posted course materials -- you do NOT and should NOT attempt to research this legal issue online. In addition,
Do NOT discuss whether Taneka could also have sued in federal district court based on that court’s diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.
Do NOT discuss whether NEPTA was properly served with notice of the lawsuit (service of process).
Do NOT discuss the legal standard for a court to grant a motion to dismiss (in New York state courts or anywhere else).
Do NOT discuss the underlying tort issues and whether NEPTA can be held liable for the personal injuries Tenaka sustained when he fell as he exited the NEPTA commuter train at the platform in Clayton, Delaware.