Preview:

Conklin Servs. & Constr., Inc. v Slezak Petroleum Prods., Inc. (2009 NY Slip Op 50028(U))
[*1]


Decided on January 7, 2009
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : RUDOLPH, P.J., MOLIA and SCHEINKMAN, JJ 2008-325 OR C.
Conklin Services & Construction, Inc., Respondent,
against
Slezak Petroleum Products, Inc., Appellant.
Appeal from an order of the City Court of Newburgh, Orange County (Peter M. Kulkin, J.), dated December 4, 2007. The order denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.Order reversed without costs and defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint granted.Defendant, a corporation whose principal place of business is in Montgomery County, moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting, inter alia, that it is a non-resident of Orange County and that the City Court of Newburgh had no basis to exercise long-arm jurisdiction over it pursuant to UCCA 404 (d). Defendant appeals from the denial of its unopposed motion.
We find that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant. As plaintiff failed to oppose defendant's motion, defendant's assertion that it is not a resident of Orange County went unrefuted
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/NY/1/2009_50028.htm[4/21/2013 11:23:00 AM]
Conklin Servs. & Constr., Inc. v Slezak Petroleum Prods., Inc. (2009 NY Slip Op 50028(U))
(see UCCA 403 ["Service of summons shall be made . . . only within the county unless service beyond the county be authorized by law"]; UCCA 404 [d] ["If service of the summons cannot be effected by personal delivery thereof within the county so as to acquire in personam jurisdiction of a corporation . . . such corporation . . . shall be deemed a non-resident of the county"]; cf. UCCA 213
[b] ["A corporation . . . shall . . . be deemed a resident of the city if it has an office or agency or regularly transacts business in the city"]). Moreover, defendant made a prima facie showing that there was no basis for the exercise of long-arm jurisdiction over it pursuant to UCCA 404 (a). Accordingly, the order denying defendant's unopposed motion to dismiss the complaint is reversed and defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted.
Rudolph, P.J., Molia and Scheinkman, JJ., concur. [*2]
Decision Date: January 07, 2009
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/NY/1/2009_50028.htm[4/21/2013 11:23:00 AM]

Download 2009_50028.pdf

New York Law