Flannery v. General Motors Corp.
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Reed v. Gowanda Nursing Home (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Breer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (New York Supreme Court 2000)
- B.B. v. Cosby (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
- Green 333 Corp. v. RNL Life Science, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Garrow v. Pittsburgh Logistics Sys., Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- Chan v. Onyx Capital, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Elzofri v. American Express Co. (New York Supreme Court 2010)
- VanNorden v. Mann Edge Tool Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- TAZ Productions, Inc. v. Rentacom, Inc. (Civil Court of the City of New York 2008)
- ICD Group International Ltd. v. Achidov (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- Sorrento v. Rice Barton Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
- New York City Housing Authority v. Fountain (Civil Court of the City of New York 1997)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with *773 costs, and the certified question answered in the negative. Plaintiff does not contest that he failed to file an affidavit of compliance as required by Business Corporation Law § 307 (c) (2). That defect is jurisdictional and does not constitute a "mere irregularity]” subject to cure (see, Flick v StewartWamer Corp., 76 NY2d 50, 57 [holding that strict compliance with the procedures of Business Corporation Law § 307 is required to effect service on an unauthorized foreign corporation]; Stewart v Volkswagen of Am., 81 NY2d 203, 207 [noting "mandatory sequence and progression of service completion options” necessary to acquire jurisdiction over foreign corporation not authorized to do business in New York]; David v Fuchs, 204 AD2d 253, 254, lv denied in part and dismissed in part 84 NY2d 1003; Smolen v Cosco, Inc., 207 AD2d 441). Thus, plaintiff’s failure to serve defendant Truxmore, Inc. in accordance with the strict requirements of Business Corporation Law § 307 (c) (2) divested Supreme Court of jurisdiction over defendant and the motion to dismiss was properly granted.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, etc.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.