Williams v. DRBX Holdings, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. DRBX Holdings, LLC

80 A.D.3d 534, 914 N.Y.S.2d 895

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 80 A.D.3d 534 (Williams v. DRBX Holdings, LLC) 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

Williams v. DRBX Holdings, LLC, 80 A.D.3d 534, 914 N.Y.S.2d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary BriganttiHughes, J.), entered on or about August 3, 2009, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In attempting to serve process on defendant, a foreign limited liability company authorized to do business in New York, plaintiff served defendant’s attorneys instead of serving the Secretary of State, as required by Limited Liability Company Law § 303. Despite being twice alerted to the error by defense counsel, plaintiff never served the Secretary of State. “Notice received by means other than those authorized by statute does not bring a defendant within the jurisdiction of the court” (Macchia v Russo, 67 NY2d 592, 595 [1986]). The fact that defendant’s attorneys would have received a copy of process from the Secretary of State does not avail plaintiff (see Fwu Chyuang Chow v Kenteh Enters. Corp., 169 AD2d 572 [1991]). Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Acosta, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mary BriganttiHughes, J.), entered on or about August 3, 2009, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In attempting to serve process on defendant, a foreign limited liability company authorized to do business in New York, plaintiff served defendant’s attorneys instead of serving the Secretary of State, as required by Limited Liability Company Law § 303. Despite being twice alerted to the error by defense counsel, plaintiff never served the Secretary of State. “Notice received by means other than those authorized by statute does not bring a defendant within the jurisdiction of the court” (Macchia v Russo, 67 NY2d 592, 595 [1986]). The fact that defendant’s attorneys would have received a copy of process from the Secretary of State does not avail plaintiff (see Fwu Chyuang Chow v Kenteh Enters. Corp., 169 AD2d 572 [1991]). Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Acosta, Freedman and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.3d 534, 914 N.Y.S.2d 895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-drbx-holdings-llc-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack