Plaintiff, a resident of New York, has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York against Mercs Corporation, a shoe manufacturer, for injuries Plaintiff allegedly suffered while wearing Mercs running shoes to train for the Syracuse Half Marathon. Mercs Corporation is incorporated in the State of Delaware and has its headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts. Mercs Corporation has offices and manufacturing plants in both Massachusetts and New York, and sells it shoes from retail stores that it owns in Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont.

Plaintiff bought her Mercs running shoes while on vacation last year in Vermont. While she was out shopping, she saw posters in the local Mercs store advertising running shoes with the "best arch support." (These posters were used in all of Mercs retail stores, in Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont.) Plaintiff returned home from vacation and began training with the running shoes near her home in Syracuse, New York. After several months, Plaintiff developed a condition called plantar fasciitis, a severe pain in the arch of her foot. After her doctor told her that he believed the Mercs running shoe had caused her condition, she sued Mercs Corporation.

When Mercs Corporation was served with a copy of the complaint and summons, it responded by filing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Assume that the New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules provides, in part, that New York courts may exercise jurisdiction over a defendant who commits a tortious act that causes injury to person or property within the state if the defendant expects or reasonably should expect the act to have consequences in the state.

How should the district court rule on the motion to dismiss and why? Address in your answer both whether there is a statutory basis for jurisdiction and, if so, whether the exercise of jurisdiction would be constitutional.