Flick v. Stewart-Warner Corp.
New York Court of Appeals
76 N.Y.2d 50, 556 N.Y.S.2d 510, 555 N.E.2d 907 (1990)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
New York’s Business Corporation Law (BCL) provided different methods for serving process on foreign corporations that were authorized to conduct business in New York and foreign corporations that were not so authorized. To serve a nonauthorized foreign corporation, BCL § 307 required a plaintiff to serve the process on New York’s secretary of state and to personally deliver or send by registered mail notice of service and copies of the process to the corporation. A plaintiff also was required to file an affidavit of service with the relevant court clerk within 30 days of service. Service of process was not complete until 10 days after the filing of the affidavit of service. To serve an authorized foreign corporation, BCL § 306 required a plaintiff to serve New York’s secretary of state, with service being completed when the secretary of state was served. Stewart-Warner Corporation (Stewart) (defendant) was a foreign corporation that was not authorized to do business in New York. Gerard Flick (plaintiff) sued Stewart in the mistaken belief that Stewart was authorized to do business in New York. Accordingly, Flick delivered his summons and complaint to the New York secretary of state but did not personally deliver the summons and complaint or send them by registered mail to Stewart’s Chicago office and did not file an affidavit of service with the relevant clerk. Nevertheless, Stewart received actual notice of Flick’s suit. When Stewart did not file an appearance, Flick moved for a default judgment. Stewart opposed that motion and cross-moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Stewart was not served properly and that, as a consequence, the supreme court never acquired jurisdiction over Stewart. The supreme court ruled that service was proper, and the appellate division affirmed, concluding that the supreme court acquired jurisdiction when Flick served the secretary of state and that the other requirements of § 307 could be disregarded if Stewart was not prejudiced. Stewart appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hancock, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
