Opinion
June 24, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the branch of the cross motion of the defendants Cottrell, Ltd. and ProChem Company which was to dismiss the complaint on the ground of improper service is denied, the complaint is reinstated insofar as asserted against them, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, to determine the plaintiffs' motion to strike certain affirmative defenses, and those branches of the cross motion which were not decided.
The documents on file with the Colorado Secretary of State do not designate any "post office address specifi[cally] for the purpose of mailing process" to either one of the two respondent corporations (Business Corporation Law § 307 [b] [2]). Because "no such address is there specified" (Business Corporation Law § 307 [b] [2]), the plaintiffs were free to mail process to any "registered or other office there specified" (Business Corporation Law § 307 [b] [2]). The present record shows that this is what the plaintiffs in fact did when they mailed process to an address in Englewood, Colorado, which is listed in the documents on file with the Colorado Secretary of State as the address of each corporation's "place of business". Because the plaintiffs strictly complied with the literal terms of Business Corporation Law § 307, the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the action on this ground ( cf., Stewart v. Volkswagen of Am., 81 N.Y.2d 203; Flick v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 76 N.Y.2d 50).
In light of its determination, the Supreme Court did not address the remaining issues raised in the defendants' cross motion, nor did it address the issues in the plaintiffs' motion. These issues were not briefed on appeal. Under these and all the other circumstances presented, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for further proceedings ( see, Hudson Val. Cablevision Corp. v. 202 Developers, 185 A.D.2d 917; Mayer v. Harris, 191 A.D.2d 484; Menorah Nursing Home v. Zukov, 153 A.D.2d 13, 26). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Copertino and Krausman, JJ., concur.