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
Employment Discrimination Claim Stated Under the NYC Human Rights Law But Not Under the State Human Rights Law
Defendant’s Inability to Articulate a Reason for the Withdrawal of His Plea Was a Proper Basis for Refusal of His Request for An Adjournment of Sentencing to Consider Withdrawal of the Plea
ADDING DEFENDANT’S NAME TO A “JOHN DOE DNA INDICTMENT” WITHOUT FURTHER GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND IS THEREFORE WAIVED BY A GUILTY PLEA.
County Court Was Not Required to Inquire Whether Defendant Wished to Seek New Counsel—Defendant’s Counsel of Choice Was Ill and County Court Ordered the Trial to Go Forward with Substitute Counsel (Selected by Defendant’s Counsel of Choice) After Denying Defendant’s Request for an Adjournment
THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY RETIRED NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES TO PROVE THE CITY PROMISED TO PROVIDE THEM WITH MEDICARE SUPPLEMENTAL INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR LIFE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS PROMISE; THEREFORE THE RETIREES WERE NOT ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT ON THEIR PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CAUSE OF ACTION (CT APP).
IN ANSWERING TWO CERTIFIED QUESTIONS FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT, THE COURT OF APPEALS HELD THAT THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) APPLIED RETROACTIVELY AND DID NOT VIOLATE SUBSTANTIVE OR PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS UNDER THE NEW YORK CONSTITUTION (CT APP)
THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATON AND DEVELOPMENT HAD A RATIONAL BASIS FOR FINDING THAT PETITIONER DID NOT USE HIS BROTHER’S APARTMENT AS HIS PRIMARY RESIDENCE FOR ONE YEAR PRIOR TO HIS BROTHER’S DEATH; THEREFORE PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUCCESSION RIGHTS TO THE MITCHELL-LAMA APARTMENT; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE TWO-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).
TWO PRIOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON INCIDENTS IN 2006 AND 2007, WHERE DEFENDANT CLAIMED THE WEAPONS BELONGED TO ANOTHER AND HE WAS UNAWARE OF THEIR PRESENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER MOLINEUX IN THIS 2017 POSSESSION OF A WEAPON PROSECUTION, WHERE DEFENDANT CLAIMED THEY WERE PLACED IN THE VEHICLE BY ANOTHER WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE; THERE WAS A CONCURRENCE AND A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (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...