You are here: / / DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOREIGN CORPORATION WAS DOING BUSINESS...
, ,

DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOREIGN CORPORATION WAS DOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION ON THAT GROUND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined a defendant in this foreclosure action brought by a foreign corporation did not demonstrate the corporation was doing business in New York without authorization. Therefore defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on that ground should not have been granted:

“Business Corporation Law § 1312(a) constitutes a bar to the maintenance of an action by a foreign corporation found to be doing business in New York without . . . the required authorization to do business there” … . “The purpose of that section is to regulate foreign corporations which are doing business’ within the State, not . . . to enable the avoidance of contractual obligations” … . “[T]he party relying upon this statutory barrier bears the burden of proving that the corporation’s business activities in New York were not just casual or occasional, but so systematic and regular as to manifest continuity of activity in the jurisdiction”… . “[A]bsent proof establishing that the [subject corporation] is doing business in New York, it is presumed that [it] is doing business in [the] State of incorporation, and not in New York” … .

The defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that “[the appellant] conducted continuous activities in [New York] essential to its corporate business” … . Therefore, “the presumption that [the appellant] does business, not in New York but in its State of incorporation has not been overcome” … . JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Didato, 2020 NY Slip Op 03903, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

You might also like
Under Powers Reserved to the Town by an 1818 Law, the Town Cannot Regulate Shoreline Dune Reconstruction and Erosion Control Undertaken by a Village within the Town
DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASES SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, THE JURY FOUND DEFENDANT NEGLIGENT BUT FURTHER FOUND THE NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL, HOWEVER, THE NEGLIGENCE AND PROXIMATE CAUSE WERE INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE REPRESENTATION THAT THE INSURED PROPERTY WAS A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING WHEN, IN FACT, IT WAS A THREE-FAMILY DWELLING, WAS A MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATION; COVERAGE FOR FIRE DAMAGE PROPERLY DISCLAIMED (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Understood the Reference to the “Appellate Division” Was a Reference to a Higher Court—Waiver of Appeal Was Therefore Valid
Defendants Demonstrated They Were Entitled to Depose Nonparty Physician Whose Notations Expressed Skepticism About the Cause of Plaintiff’s Injuries
THE CONTENTION DEFENDANT WAS ILLEGALLY SENTENCED SURVIVES A WAIVER OF APPEAL AND WILL BE HEARD IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE PEOPLE DID NOT SHOW THE EQUIVALENCY OF THE CALIFORNIA ROBBERY CONVICTION, DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS SPECIFIC ASSERTIONS BY DEFENDANT’S EXPERT RE: PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONING UNIT WHICH ALLEGEDLY LEAKED WATER ON THE FLOOR WERE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD; THE “BUILDING” DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONDITION; AND THE COMPANY WHICH INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THE AIR CONDITIONER DID NOT SHOW IT DID NOT LAUNCH AND INSTRUMENT OF HARM (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT ABSENT A... DEFENDANT DOCTORS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE...