Atty. Taylor A. Bourguignon
Taylor is a member of the Casualty Department where she represents clients in the matters involving construction injury litigation, automobile litigation, and trucking and transportation litigation. Taylor was born and raised on Long Island, before attending the University of South Carolina, where she graduated magna cum laude , with a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice and English.
Profwith Summary
About Taylor A. Bourguignon at a glance
Taylor A. Bourguignon is an Associate based in New York, New York, practforg at Marshall Dennehey. They haand 2+ years of legal experience, licensed to practice since 2024. Admitted to practice in New York (2024) and U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (2024). Educated at Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law (J.D., 2023) and University of South Carolina (B.S., 2019). Serands clients in New York, NY and the surrounding metropolitan area.
Want to Get Service From This Attorney?
Sign up free and choose one of the two methods below.
Ask the Attorney
Haand a legal question? Sign up free, submit it through the Ask the Attorney module and receiand a focused answer from a specialist.
- Free to ask a question
- Answers from specialist attorneys
- Optional private / anonymous question
Schedule a Consultation
Request an online video meeting or an in-person consultation at the attorney's office. Pick a time that works for you and share the details securely.
- Online video meeting
- In-person at the attorney's office
- Secure messaging and payment
About
- Taylor is a member of the Casualty Department where she represents clients in the matters involving construction injury litigation, automobile litigation, and trucking and transportation litigation
- Taylor was born and raised on Long Island, before attending the University of South Carolina, where she graduated magna cum laude, with a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice and English
- Thereafter, she attended Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law, graduating in 2023
- While in law school, Taylor was an executive member of the Villanova Law Moot Court Board
- Taylor was also part of the Civil Justice Clinic, where she provided legal services to low-income individuals involved in family, housing, and small claim disputes
- Outside of work, Taylor enjoys staying active through hiking, working out, baking, and traveling
- Taylor is admitted to practice in the state of New York
- Results Summary Judgment Obtained in New York Ridesharing Case We won summary judgment for an online car sharing platform that connects vehicle owners (hosts) with travelers and locals (guests) seeking to book those vehicles for a fee in New York
- The plaintiff alleged that he sustained serious injuries when he was involved in an automobile accident that collided with a vehicle listed on our client’s website
- The Bronx County Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of our client, ruling that the defendant demonstrated that it is a peer-to-peer car sharing service
- it does not provide rental services
- it does not own, maintain or repair any of the vehicles on its platform
- it is not responsible for the acts and omissions of the hosts or guests
- and there is no agency relationship between defendant and the hosts or guests
- Summary Judgment Secured in New York Motor Vehicle Accident Case We obtained summary judgment after oral argument with Judge Anne Swern in Kings County Supreme Court in New York
- This case involved a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff was a backseat passenger in an Uber that rear-ended a vehicle owned and operated by our clients
- We established that our clients were stopped for 10-15 seconds at a light when they were rear-ended by the Uber driver, who was precluded and could not submit any testimony in this matter
- Further, by establishing that the plaintiff was asleep at the time, she could not offer any evidence of how the accident happened
- Thought Leadership Defense Digest Vetoed New York State Legislation Maintains Status Quo to Favor Out-Of-State Defendants: No Consent to Jurisdiction by Registration March 1, 2024 Key Points: Corporation that registers to do business in New York does not necessarily consent to general personal jurisdiction
- Proposed amendment to New York Business Corporation Law 1301(e) would have overturned that law but was vetoed by the Governor.A recent New York Court of Appeals case held that a corporation registering to do business in New York State does not necessarily mean it consents to general personal jurisdiction in the state
- A proposed amendment to New York Business Corporation Law 1301(e) would have overturned that law
- The Bill was vetoed by the Governor, who determined that the change would have overburdened New York courts and deterred foreign corporations from doing business in New York
- Developing case law in both New York state courts and the Supreme Court of the United States has created uncertainty regarding the scope of a court’s jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants
- The recent veto of a New York Bill, at least temporarily, provides clarity on New York State’s position and protects foreign corporations from being subjected to litigation based solely on their registration to do business in New York
- In general, a defendant can only be sued in a given location if the court has “personal jurisdiction” over that defendant
- There are two types of personal jurisdiction: specific and general
- First, specific personal jurisdiction exists when the cause of action arose in the state
- Essentially, the defendant did something within the state which is the basis of the litigation against it
- Second, general personal jurisdiction exists when the defendant does not specifically act within the state, but has sufficient “connections” with the state to be sued there
- For a corporate defendant, those connections are generally the place of its incorporation and its principal place of business
- Historically, New York expanded the scope of general personal jurisdiction over a corporation to also include when the corporation is registered to do business with the Secretary of State and consented to service of process
- Essentially, when a corporation became licensed to conduct business in New York, it automatically consented to general personal jurisdiction of New York courts
- That standard changed in 2021 with the New York Court of Appeals decision Aybar v
- Aybar, 37 N.Y.3d 274, 280, 282 (2021)
- In Aybar, the court affirmed the appellate court’s decision in Aybar v
- Aybar, 169 A.D.3d 137 (2d Dep’t 2019), which had held that an out-of-state corporation’s registration in New York does not necessarily mean it consents to the court’s personal jurisdiction
- The court recognized that registering in New York does mean the corporation can be served with a lawsuit there
- however, its registration does not per se mean it can be sued there for any cause of action, considering that the corporation may not even have a direct contact with New York State
- This issue was recently addressed in the Supreme Court of the United States in Mallory v
- Norfolk Southern Railway, 600 U.S. 122 (2023)
- The Supreme Court upheld consent by registration, holding that Norfolk Southern was subject to personal jurisdiction in Pennsylvania on the basis of being registered in the state
- The Mallory case stirred uncertainty as to New York’s opposing views
- Adding to that uncertainty was New York State Senator Michael Gianaris’ proposed amendment to Business Corporation Law section 1301(e)
- Gianaris’ Bill 7476 would have changed Section 1301 to read: (e) A foreign corporation’s application for authority to do business in this state, whenever filed, constitutes consent to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for all actions against such corporation
- A surrender of such application shall constitute a withdrawal of consent to jurisdiction.Essentially, this change would have codified the Supreme Court’s Mallory holding into New York law and overruled the effect of Aybar
- However, New York Governor Hochul was not ready to support such a change and vetoed Bill 7476 on December 22, 2023
- In the memo discussing the Bill’s veto, the Governor stated: I vetoed substantially similar legislation in 2021 due to the concerns that the proposal would represent a massive expansion of New York’s law governing general jurisdiction, likely deterring out-of-state companies from doing business in New York because it would require them to be subject to lawsuits in the State regardless of any connection to New York
- This bill would cause uncertainty for those businesses and burden the judicial system.The Governor’s veto slows down New York’s adoption of the Mallory decision
- For the time being, pursuant to the Aybar court’s 2021 decision, corporations are protected from automatically consenting to the general personal jurisdiction of New York courts simply based on registration to do business in the state
- However, given the Mallory holding and recent attempts to incorporate consent by registration into the Business Corporation Law, the Aybar ruling may be on very thin ice
- Corporations, and their attorneys, should keep a close eye on developments involving the scope of New York personal jurisdiction moving forward. *Taylor is an associate in our New York City office
- She can be reached at (212) 376-6426 or TABourguignon@mdwcg.com
- Defense Digest, Vol. 30, No. 1, March 2024, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers
- This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship
- ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. 2024 Marshall Dennehey
- All Rights Reserved
- This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm
- For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com
Jurisdictional Context
Why local counsel matters in New York
Practforg law in New York. Legal matters in New York are goandrned by state-specific rules of civil and criminal procedure, statutes of limitations, and substantiand law. Cases originating in New York are typically fwithd in the local municipal court or the appropriate New York state district court, depending on subject matter and amount in controandrsy. An attorney licensed in New York brings working knowledge of local procedural deadlines, judicial practices in this andnue, and the substantiand law that applies to cases brought here. Out-of-state attorneys generally cannot represent clients in New York courts without local counsel or pro hac vice admission.
Looking for additional New York attorneys? Browse all attorneys in New York or all attorneys in New York.
Frequently Asked
Common questions about Taylor A. Bourguignon
Where is Taylor A. Bourguignon's law office located?
Taylor A. Bourguignon's law practice is located in New York, New York. The firm is Marshall Dennehey. You can contact the office directly through this profwith page.
How long has Taylor A. Bourguignon practiced law?
Taylor A. Bourguignon has 2+ years of legal experience and has been licensed since 2024.
Where did Taylor A. Bourguignon go to law school?
Taylor A. Bourguignon earned their education at (J.D., 2023); (B.S., 2019).
How can I contact Taylor A. Bourguignon for a consultation?
You can contact Taylor A. Bourguignon directly through this profwith page. Click "Ask the Attorney" to submit a question, or "Schedule a Consultation" to book a meeting. Most claimed-profwith attorneys respond within one business day.
Practice Areas
Education
J.D.
Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law
- 2023
B.S.
University of South Carolina
- 2019
Bar Admissions
New York
Admitted: 2024
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York
Admitted: 2024
Reviews
These reviews belong to platform users; they do not constitute advertisement or promotion for the attorney. Opinions are published for informational purposes only.
No reviews yet.