Bruce Supply Corp. v. New Wave Mechanical, Inc.

Decision Date17 February 2004
Docket Number2003-02481.,2002-08899.
Citation773 N.Y.S.2d 408,4 A.D.3d 444,2004 NY Slip Op 00994
PartiesBRUCE SUPPLY CORP., Appellant, v. NEW WAVE MECHANICAL, INC., et al., Respondents.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered August 22, 2002, is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated February 19, 2003, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the defendants.

The appeal from the order entered August 22, 2002, is dismissed because it did not decide the defendants' motion but merely ruled on an issue to aid in disposition of the motion (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]) and no leave to appeal from that order has been sought or granted. That ruling was, in effect, confirmed in the order dated February 19, 2003, which decided the defendants' motion based upon that ruling. The issues raised on the appeal from the order entered August 22, 2002, have been considered on appeal from the order dated February 19, 2003.

The plaintiff's complaint states that it seeks payment for goods sold and delivered to the corporate defendant New Wave Mechanical, Inc. (hereinafter New Wave Mechanical) from December 9, 1999, until January 8, 2001, and seeks to enforce the defendant Robert Pennachio's personal guarantee of the debts of New Wave Mechanical. New Wave Mechanical was served with process pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306 by service upon the Secretary of State.

After a judgment was entered against the defendants upon their failure to appear or answer, the defendants moved to vacate the judgment and for an opportunity to "appear and defend the within action." The Supreme Court referred the matter to a Judicial Hearing Officer for a hearing on whether the defendants were properly served with process.

By order entered August 22, 2002, the Judicial Hearing Officer determined that "service on the Secretary of State is also set aside." The basis for that determination was that New Wave Mechanical was dissolved on September 28, 1994, by proclamation of the Secretary of State pursuant to the Tax Law.

A dissolved corporation "may sue or be sued . . . in its corporate name, and process may be served by or upon it" (Business Corporation Law § 1006 [a] [4]; see Gutman v Club Mediterranee Intl., 218 AD2d 640 [1995]). It is well settled that personal jurisdiction over a dissolved...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Hyman v. Schwartz
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 27 Febrero 2014
    ...be made through the Secretary of State ( seeBusiness Corporation Law §§ 304, 306[a]; CPLR 311[a][1]; Bruce Supply Corp. v. New Wave Mech., 4 A.D.3d 444, 445, 773 N.Y.S.2d 408 [2004];Camacho v. New York City Tr. Auth., 115 A.D.2d 691, 693, 496 N.Y.S.2d 516 [1985];see also Centennial El. Indu......
  • Am. Transit Ins. Co. v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 17 Octubre 2013
    ...in its corporate name by service on the New York State Secretary of State. N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 1006(b); Bruce Supply Corp. v. New Wave Mech., 4 A.D.3d 444, 445 (2d Dep't 2004). Plaintiff fails to show it attempted any form of service on Apple Pool Contracting, via the Secretary of State o......
  • Am. Transit Ins. Co. v. State Farm Fire & Cas.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 17 Octubre 2013
    ...in its corporate name by service on the New York State Secretary of State. N.Y. Bus. Corp. Law § 1006(b); Bruce Supply Corp. v. New Wave Mech., 4 A.D.3d 444, 445 (2d Dep't 2004). Plaintiff fails to show it attempted any form of service on Apple Pool Contracting, via the Secretary of State o......
  • Weiss v. Markel
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 29 Mayo 2012
    ...Plan Trust v. Matty's Super service, Inc., 156 A.D.2d 339, 548 N.Y.S.2d 292 (2d Dept. 1989); Bruce Supply Corp v. New Wave Mechanical. Inc., 4 A.D.3d444, 773 N.Y.S.2d 408 (2d Dept. 2004)). The dissolution of a corporation does not entirely terminate corporate existence. (Camacho v. New York......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT