You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SERVICE...
, ,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SERVICE OF PROCESS REQUIREMENTS OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW (SERVICE UPON THE SECRETARY OF STATE) (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiffs did not demonstrate compliance with the service of process requirements of the Limited Liability Company Law:

“The plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over the defendant was obtained by proper service of process” … . Proof of service, often in the form of an affidavit of service (see CPLR 306 [d]), must include “the papers served, the person who was served and the date, time [and] address [of such service], . . . and set forth facts showing that the service was made by an authorized person and in an authorized manner” … . Additionally, “[b]ecause service of process is necessary to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendants, courts require strict compliance with the statutory methods of service” … . As relevant here, “[s]ervice of process on the secretary of state as agent of a domestic limited liability company . . . shall be made by personally delivering to and leaving with the secretary of state or his or her deputy, or with any person authorized by the secretary of state to receive such service, . . . duplicate copies of such process together with the statutory fee” … . …

Although plaintiffs proffered an unsigned receipt of service purportedly generated by the Office of the Secretary of State, that receipt did not set forth the papers served, whether duplicate copies of those papers were delivered to the Secretary of State, the time of service or facts showing that service was made by an authorized person (see Limited Liability Company Law § 303 [a]; CPLR 306 [a], [d]). Cedar Run Homeowners’ Assn., Inc. v Adirondack Dev. Group, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04528, Third Dept 6-6-19

 

You might also like
CLAIMANT INITIALLY BELIEVED THE ROAD WHERE HE STEPPED IN A POTHOLE AND FELL WAS OWNED BY THE VILLAGE, BUT IN FACT IT WAS OWNED BY THE STATE; CLAIMANT’S LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE CARRIER’S APPLICATION FOR APPEAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE DATE WHEN THE OBJECTION WHICH IS THE BASIS OF THE APPEAL WAS MADE; THERE WAS ONLY ONE HEARING AND THE REGULATION IN EFFECT AT THE TIME ONLY ASKED “WHEN” THE OBJECTION WAS MADE (THIRD DEPT).
ALLEGATIONS FATHER DID NOT ABIDE BY THE VISITATION TERMS AND USED DRUGS DURING VISITATION SUPPORTED MOTHER’S PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY BASED UPON CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONERS VIOLATED THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW BY FILLING BELOW THE HIGH WATER MARK OF A POND; THE POND MET THE DEFINITION OF ‘NAVIGABLE WATERS’ AND WAS THEREFORE SUBJECT TO THE STATUTORY PROHIBITION (THIRD DEPT).
Imputed Income, As Opposed to Actual Income, Used to Determine Mother’s Contribution to College Costs
THE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED TO STOP DELIBERATIONS IF IT FOUND THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIED TO THE TOP COUNT (MURDER); DEFENDANT’S MANSLAUGHTER CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED) (THIRD DEPT).
CORRECTION OFFICER’S FALL DOWN A STAIRWAY WAS PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY THE ACT OF AN INMATE, THE RESULTING DISABILITY IS THEREFORE COMPENSABLE (THIRD DEPT).
WIFE NOT ENTITLED TO UNSEAL RECORD OF HUSBAND’S ALLEGED ASSAULT AGAINST HER IN THESE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, HUSBAND WAS GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT IN CONTEMPLATION OF DISMISSAL AND DID NOT PLACE THE CRIMINAL MATTER IN ISSUE, THE RECORD WAS SEALED BY OPERATION OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW (THIRD 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

ARBITRATOR EXCEEDED HIS AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT... PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SO HIS FALL FROM A LADDER WAS NOT...