Claudio v. Show Piers on Hudson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Claudio v. Show Piers on Hudson

82 A.D.3d 432, 917 N.Y.2d 860

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 3, 2011

StatusPublished

This text of 82 A.D.3d 432 (Claudio v. Show Piers on Hudson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Claudio v. Show Piers on Hudson, 82 A.D.3d 432, 917 N.Y.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The motion court properly charged Port Parties with knowledge of plaintiffs claim as of May 15, 2008. Service of process on Port Parties was “complete” when the summons and complaint were personally served upon an authorized agent of the Secretary of State on that date (Business Corporation Law § 306 [b] [1]; CPLR 311). Port Parties’ contention that it did not actually receive the copy mailed to it by the Secretary of State is unsupported by the record and, in any event, unavailing. Business Corporation Law § 306 (b) (1) does not make completion of service contingent upon the Secretary of State’s mailing (see Flick v Stewart-Warner Corp., 76 NY2d 50, 56-57 [1990]).

[433]*433We have considered Port Parties’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Saxe, J.P, Sweeny, Catterson, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The motion court properly charged Port Parties with knowledge of plaintiffs claim as of May 15, 2008. Service of process on Port Parties was “complete” when the summons and complaint were personally served upon an authorized agent of the Secretary of State on that date (Business Corporation Law § 306 [b] [1]; CPLR 311). Port Parties’ contention that it did not actually receive the copy mailed to it by the Secretary of State is unsupported by the record and, in any event, unavailing. Business Corporation Law § 306 (b) (1) does not make completion of service contingent upon the Secretary of State’s mailing (see Flick v Stewart-Warner Corp., 76 NY2d 50, 56-57 [1990]).

[433]*433We have considered Port Parties’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Saxe, J.P, Sweeny, Catterson, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 432, 917 N.Y.2d 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/claudio-v-show-piers-on-hudson-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack