From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meyer v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 10, 1983
92 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

February 10, 1983


Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Kirschenbaum, J.), entered June 29, 1982, which denied defendant Volkswagen of America, Incorporated's motion (CPLR 3211, subd [a], par 8) to dismiss the complaint because of a lack of in personam jurisdiction, is unanimously reversed, on the law, the defendant's motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed, without costs. In Suffolk County, on February 25, 1980, Enno J. Meyer (Enno) was killed, when the vehicle in which he was a passenger collided with a vehicle manufactured by Volkswagen. Defendant is a foreign corporation that is not authorized to do business in this State. Decedent's wife is the administratrix of the goods and chattels of Enno. By substituted service on the Secretary of State, plaintiff administratrix attempted to commence a wrongful death action for damages against defendant. Thus, on February 18, 1982 plaintiff served a copy of the summons and complaint at the Secretary of State's office located in New York City. By notice of motion, dated April 5, 1982, defendant moved to dismiss this purported service of process in New York City because the plaintiff had not complied with subdivision (b) of section 307 Bus. Corp. of the Business Corporation Law. That subdivision provides that service: "shall be made by personally delivering to and leaving with him [the Secretary of State] or his deputy, or with any person authorized by the secretary of state to receive such service, at the office of the department of state in the city of Albany, a copy of such process together with the statutory fee" (emphasis added). We conclude that this statute is clear, unambiguous and must be strictly complied with "since notice received by means other than those authorized by statute cannot serve to bring a defendant within the jurisdiction of the court" ( Feinstein v. Bergner, 48 N.Y.2d 234, 241). Therefore, we find that Special Term erred in denying defendant's motion since the plaintiff did not serve the process "at the office of the department of state in the city of Albany".

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Carro, Fein and Lynch, JJ.


Summaries of

Meyer v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 10, 1983
92 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

Meyer v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:RAQUEL E. MEYER, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of ENNO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Feb 10, 1983

Citations

92 A.D.2d 488 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

Mensah v. Kalkoran

A defendant is entitled to a "judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him on the…

Marine Midland v. Welbilt

Pursuant to section 307, only one copy of process has to be served on the Secretary of State and a second…