You are here: / / A FOREIGN CORPORATION WHICH REGISTERS TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK CONSENTS...
,

A FOREIGN CORPORATION WHICH REGISTERS TO DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK CONSENTS TO THE SERVICE OF PROCESS IN NEW YORK BUT DOES NOT CONSENT TO THE GENERAL JURISDICTION OF NEW YORK (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, over a two-judge dissent, determined that a corporation registered to do business in New York consents to the service of process in New York, but not to general jurisdiction in New York. The underlying lawsuit stemmed from a car accident in Virginia. Both Ford and Goodyear were sued. Neither the car or the tire were made or sold in New York:

Aybar [the New York resident who drove the car] purchased the vehicle in New York from a third party. Ford did not sell the vehicle in this state in the first instance, nor did Ford design or manufacture the vehicle here. Similarly, Goodyear designed, manufactured, and initially sold the tire in other states. It is undisputed that Ford was incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal place of business in Michigan and that Goodyear was incorporated and has its principal place of business in Ohio. At all relevant times, Ford and Goodyear were registered with the New York Secretary of State as foreign corporations authorized to do business in this state and had appointed in-state agents for service of process in accordance with the Business Corporation Law. * * *

We have never conflated statutory consent to service with consent to general jurisdiction, and the fact remains that, under existing New York law, a foreign corporation does not consent to general jurisdiction in this state merely by complying with the Business Corporation Law’s registration provisions. Aybar v Aybar, 2021 NY Slip Op 05393, Ct App 10-7-21

 

You might also like
THE $140 MILLION PAID BY BEAR STEARNS TO THE SEC TO SETTLE AN ACTION ALLEGING THE FACILITATION OF LATE TRADING WAS NOT A “PENALTY IMPOSED BY LAW” AND THEREFORE WAS A COVERED LOSS UNDER THE TERMS OF THE INSURANCE POLICIES (CT APP).
Defendant’s Having Unprotected Sex with Partner After Defendant’s HIV-Positive Diagnosis Did Not Constitute “Depraved Indifference”
Failure to Suppress Statement Was Not Harmless Error Because the Statement Undermined the Justification Defense—Proof Burdens for “Harmless Error” and the Justification Defense Explained
THE TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY TO DECEDENT’S CHILDREN WAS A VALID EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY; THE TRANSFER WAS COMPENSATION FOR CARE, NOT A GIFT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TRANSFER WAS A GIFT AND THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DID NOT AUTHORIZE GIFTS (CT APP). ​
CASE 1: THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SIGNATURES ON A NUPTIAL AGREEMENT MUST BE CONTEMPORANEOUS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY SIMULTANEOUS, WITH THE SIGNING; HERE A SEVEN-YEAR DELAY WAS TOO LONG; CASE 2: A DEFECT IN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, HERE THE LAWYERS’ FAILURE TO STATE THE SIGNERS WERE PERSONALLY KNOWN TO THEM, DID NOT INVALIDATE THE AGREEEMENT (CT APP).
THE POLICE-OFFICER WITNESS, WHO DID TESTIFY AT TRIAL, DID NOT REMEMBER THE INCIDENT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR THE CHARGES AGAINST DEFENDANT, HIS GRAND JURY TESTIMONY WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED AS PAST RECOLLECTION RECORDED, DEFENDANT’S RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION WAS NOT VIOLATED BECAUSE THE WITNESS TESTIFIED (CT APP).
DOCTOR INTENTIONALLY LEFT A GUIDE WIRE USED DURING SURGERY INSIDE PLAINTIFF’S BODY WHEN HE WAS UNABLE TO FIND IT, RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY, COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMISSED (CT APP)
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE PROSECUTOR’S REPEATED CLAIMS, DURING SUMMATION, THAT EVERYTHING THE JURY HEARD FROM DEFENDANT WERE “LIES;” MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).

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

DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH MANSLAUGHTER SECOND BASED ON THE DEATH OF A PERSON... THE PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISION OF THE...