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
THE CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE SALARY PROMISED PLAINTIFF AT THE OUTSET WAS A MISTAKE WHICH HAD BEEN CORRECTED, THE CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HER BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; SUPREME COURT’S ANALYSIS UNDER AN “AT-WILL EMPLOYEE” THEORY WAS NOT APPLICABLE (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Standing to Contest Zoning Variances Explained
Defendant Entitled to Hearing Re: Whether His Counsel Was Ineffective For Failing to Communicate an Earlier, More Lenient Plea Offer
FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE LACK OF STANDING DEFENSE IN THE ANSWER IS NO LONGER DEEMED A WAIVER OF THE DEFENSE; DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND HER ANSWER (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE STIPULATION ACKNOWLEDGING THE PRIOR DEBT DEMONSTRATED THAT THE DEED TRANSFERRING THE PROPERTY CREATED ONLY A SECURITY INTEREST AND DID NOT TRANSFER LEGAL TITLE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, A DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED STUDENT, WAS KNOCKED OVER BY ANOTHER STUDENT; THE DEFENDANT SCHOOL HAS A DUTY TO PROPERLY SUPERVISE ITS STUDENTS; QUESTIONS OF FACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT SCHOOL (THE YOUNG ADULT INSTITUTE, INC.) (SECOND DEPT).
NOTICE OF CROSS MOTION DID NOT INCLUDE THE RELIEF SOUGHT OR THE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF AS REQUIRED BY CPLR 2214 (a), CROSS MOTION PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
CORPORATE VEIL PIERCED TO ENFORCE JUDGMENTS.

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...