You are here: / / ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK...
,

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to change venue should not have been granted. Although defendant foreign corporation did not have a place of business in New York County, it had designated New York County as the location of its business in its filing with the Secretary of State:

Wakefern, a foreign corporation, submitted a copy of its application for authorization to conduct business filed with the Secretary of State, in which it identified New York County as “[t]he county within this state where its office is to be located” … . Wakefern’s designation of New York County in its application is controlling for venue purposes, even if it does not actually have an office in New York County … . Janis v Janson Supermarkets LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03333, First Dept 5-8-18

CORPORATION LAW (CIVIL PROCEDURE, VENUE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (VENUE, CORPORATION LAW,  ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/VENUE (CORPORATION LAW, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/FOREIGN CORPORATIONS (CIVIL PROCEDURE, VENUE, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
Neglect Finding Based On Single Incident Reversed.
PLAINTIFF-STUDENT ALLEGED INJURY IN AN AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM RUN BY TWO TEACHERS; THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS IMMUNE FROM SUIT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY; THE PRINCIPAL’S APPROVAL OF THE AFTERSCHOOL PROGRAM WAS DISCRETIONARY AND NO SPECIAL DUTY WAS OWED PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
FOR PURPOSES OF THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE, A LANDLORD AND A TENANT ARE NOT “UNITED IN INTEREST” (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE ACCRUAL OF INTEREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLLED DURING THE BANK’S UNEXPLAINED DELAYS IN PROCURING AND ENTERING AN ORDER OF REFERENCE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT RESTAURANT CAN BE LIABLE FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE VALET PARKING SERVICE WITH WHICH IT CONTRACTED IF THE RESTAURANT HAD THE ABILITY AND OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE CONDUCT OF THE CONTRACTOR, IF ESPINAL EXCEPTIONS APPLY, AND UNDER AN AGENCY THEORY, THE RESTAURANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
FAMILY COURT HAS THE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF A CHILD’S PLACEMENT IN A QUALIFIED RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAM (QRTP) AT EVERY PERMANENCY HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
Resident in Hotel Under Contract to Provide Rooms to Homeless Persons Entitled to Rent Stabilization Protection
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED MOTHER A SUSPENDED JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLECT PROCEEDING; THE SERIOUSNESS OF MOTHER’S CONDUCT WAS NOT ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE JUDGE (FIRST 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

LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST... ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT NEW YORK COMPANY IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF AN ISRAELI...