From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

David v. Fuchs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 31, 1994
204 A.D.2d 253 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

May 31, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).


Plaintiff brought this action alleging he was defamed by three articles in Davar, an Israeli publication, with a very small circulation in New York. We agree with the IAS Court that defendant Davar established, on documentary evidence, that it is a foreign corporation not authorized to do business in New York. Therefore, service upon it was jurisdictionally defective since plaintiff failed to file an affidavit of compliance, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 307. "[S]trict compliance with the procedures of Business Corporation Law § 307 is required to effect service on an unauthorized foreign corporation" (Flick v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 76 N.Y.2d 50, 57).

However, the IAS Court did not reach the issue of whether personal jurisdiction was obtained over the individual defendant Fuchs, which was raised by defendants on their motion to dismiss, and we remand for a traverse hearing as to that issue. Pending a determination as to such jurisdiction, we hold the remainder of the appeal in abeyance, and do not reach, at this time, the substantive issues raised as to the merits of the complaint.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.


Summaries of

David v. Fuchs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 31, 1994
204 A.D.2d 253 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

David v. Fuchs

Case Details

Full title:ARIE E. DAVID, Appellant, v. MIRIAM FUCHS et al., Respondents

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 31, 1994

Citations

204 A.D.2d 253 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
612 N.Y.S.2d 44

Citing Cases

Flannery v. General Motors Corp.

However, while, as the concurrence points out, service was made upon the intended but misnamed defendant in…

Wasserman v. Kwiecinski

Therefore, our review of the default final judgment herein is limited to the order dated January 24, 2014,…