Cedar Run Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Adirondack Dev. Grp., LLC

• Decision Date: 06 June 2019
• Docket Number: 527916
• Citation: 173 A.D.3d 1330,102 N.Y.S.3d 740
• Parties: CEDAR RUN HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Respondents, v. ADIRONDACK DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

173 A.D.3d 1330

102 N.Y.S.3d 740

CEDAR RUN HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Respondents,

v.ADIRONDACK DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, Appellant.

527916

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: April 30, 2019

Decided and Entered: June 6, 2019

Ernstrom & Dreste, LLP, Rochester (Timothy D. Boldt of counsel), for appellant.

Donald Zee, PC, Albany (Andrew Brick of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Garry, P.J., Clark, Mulvey, Devine and Pritzker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Clark, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Elliott III, J.), entered May 2, 2018 in Rensselaer County, which denied defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

In 2010, plaintiffs filed a summons and complaint in the Rensselaer County Clerk's office seeking to recover damages for alleged defects in certain condominium units built by defendant. After being served with an amended complaint in 2018, defendant moved, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8), to dismiss the amended complaint on the basis that plaintiffs failed to properly serve the summons and original complaint and, thus, Supreme Court did not have personal jurisdiction over it. Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that it had acquired personal jurisdiction over defendant through plaintiffs' service of process upon the Secretary of State. Defendant appeals.

"The plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over the defendant was obtained by proper service of process" ( Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v. Tsoukas, 303 A.D.2d 343, 343, 756 N.Y.S.2d 92 [2003] [citation omitted]; accord Pearson v. 1296 Pac. St. Assoc., Inc., 67 A.D.3d 659, 659–660, 886 N.Y.S.2d 898 [2009], lv denied 14 N.Y.3d 705, 2010 WL 1190142 [2010] ). Proof of service, often in the form of an affidavit of service (see CPLR 306[d] ), must include "the papers served, the person who was served and the date, time [and] address [of such service], ... and set forth facts showing that the service was made by an authorized person and in an authorized manner" ( CPLR 306[a] ). Additionally, "[b]ecause service of process is necessary to obtain personal jurisdiction over defendants, courts require strict compliance with the statutory methods of service" ( Pierce v. Village of Horseheads Police Dept., 107 A.D.3d 1354, 1355, 970 N.Y.S.2d 95 [2013] ). As relevant here, "[s]ervice of process on the secretary of state as agent of a domestic limited liability company ... shall be made by personally delivering to and leaving with the secretary of state or his or her deputy, or with any person authorized by the secretary of state to receive such service, ... duplicate copies of such process together with the statutory fee" ( Limited Liability Company Law § 303[a] ).

Here, plaintiffs failed to submit an affidavit of service or any other proof that would satisfy their burden of demonstrating that they acquired personal jurisdiction over defendant by, among other things, complying with Limited Liability Company Law § 303(a) (see generally Matter of Czajka v. Dellehunt, 125 A.D.3d 1177, 1182, 5 N.Y.S.3d 318 [2015] ). Although plaintif...