G.P. Exports v. Tribeca Design

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

G.P. Exports v. Tribeca Design

2017 NY Slip Op 1464, 147 A.D.3d 655, 46 N.Y.S.3d 881

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 2017

Docket3199 157244/15

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 1464 (G.P. Exports v. Tribeca Design) 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

G.P. Exports v. Tribeca Design, 2017 NY Slip Op 1464, 147 A.D.3d 655, 46 N.Y.S.3d 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered March 28, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied, without prejudice, that portion of defendants Tribeca Design Ltd. and Tribeca Design Showroom LLC’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1312 (a) and CPLR 3211 (a) (3) based upon lack of capacity to maintain the action, and directed plaintiff to comply with Business Corporation Law § 1312 (a), *656 unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and defendants’ motion denied in its entirety.

Defendants failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that plaintiff was a foreign corporation and that its “activities [were] so systematic and regular as to manifest continuity of activity in New York” that it was required to comply with Business Corporation Law § 1312 (a) (Nick v Greenfield, 299 AD2d 172, 173 [1st Dept 2002]; see Digital Ctr., S.L. v Apple Indus., Inc., 94 AD3d 571, 572 [1st Dept 2012]). Evidence of a single business transaction is insufficient to establish that a foreign corporation is doing business in the State within the meaning of the statute (see Acno-Tec Ltd. v Wall St. Suites, L.L.C., 24 AD3d 392, 393 [1st Dept 2005]). In addition, plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is an Indian partnership, not a corporation. Defendant failed to prove otherwise.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered March 28, 2016, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the brief, denied, without prejudice, that portion of defendants Tribeca Design Ltd. and Tribeca Design Showroom LLC’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 1312 (a) and CPLR 3211 (a) (3) based upon lack of capacity to maintain the action, and directed plaintiff to comply with Business Corporation Law § 1312 (a), *656 unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and defendants’ motion denied in its entirety.

Defendants failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that plaintiff was a foreign corporation and that its “activities [were] so systematic and regular as to manifest continuity of activity in New York” that it was required to comply with Business Corporation Law § 1312 (a) (Nick v Greenfield, 299 AD2d 172, 173 [1st Dept 2002]; see Digital Ctr., S.L. v Apple Indus., Inc., 94 AD3d 571, 572 [1st Dept 2012]). Evidence of a single business transaction is insufficient to establish that a foreign corporation is doing business in the State within the meaning of the statute (see Acno-Tec Ltd. v Wall St. Suites, L.L.C., 24 AD3d 392, 393 [1st Dept 2005]). In addition, plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is an Indian partnership, not a corporation. Defendant failed to prove otherwise.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 1464, 147 A.D.3d 655, 46 N.Y.S.3d 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gp-exports-v-tribeca-design-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack