People v. Benjamin Development Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 September 1992 |
| Docket Number | AR-2 |
| Citation | 589 N.Y.S.2d 144,155 Misc.2d 528 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. BENJAMIN DEVELOPMENT CO., INC., Defendant |
| Court | New York City Court |
N.Y.C. Corp. Counsel, O. Peter Sherwood by Marilyn Mason, New York City, for People.
Michael A. Fiechter, P.C., North Bellmore, for defendant.
The defendant is charged with violating Administrative Code § 19.122 () and § 19.105 (unsafe condition).
Based upon the motion papers submitted by the defense and the response papers submitted by the People, the court finds as follows:
The defendant moves for dismissal of both accusatory instruments on the ground that the court lacks personal jurisdiction of the defendant corporation. The defendant contends that it was not served in accordance with CPL 600.10 since the individual actually served with the appearance ticket was not authorized to receive service on behalf of the corporate defendant. The defendant corporation, by its attorney, appeared solely to contest jurisdiction, and the defendant maintains that such appearance does not in itself confer jurisdiction upon the court.
The People contend that once an attorney appears on behalf of a corporate defendant for any purpose, the court obtains jurisdiction over that defendant. In the alternative, the People contend service was effectuated in accordance with CPL 600.10.
CPL 600.10 provides that a corporation shall appear only through an attorney and further provides that an appearance ticket or a summons shall be delivered to one of the officers or agents of the corporation designated in the statute.
In the event a corporate defendant fails to appear, the court may enter a plea of guilty on behalf of the defaulting defendant and impose sentence, provided the court is satisfied that service of the appearance ticket was made pursuant to CPL 600.10. See, CPL 600.20; People v. Eica Construction Corp., 85 Misc.2d 1026, 381 N.Y.S.2d 377.
A corporate defendant may move to vacate a guilty plea and the sentence imposed upon the ground of improper service. However, in contrast to civil actions governed by the CPLR, there exists no authority in the CPL for a special or limited appearance by an individual or a corporation solely to contest jurisdiction.
Those provisions of the CPL permitting vacatur of a guilty plea and sentence imposed against a defaulting corporate defendant on the ground of improper service are not inconsistent with the principle that once a corporate defendant appears by its attorney, the corporation subjects itself to the full jurisdiction of the court. The court may vacate a guilty plea and sentence and proceed with the criminal prosecution.
"The basic, indispensible prerequisites for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Giusti
...served or defective appearance ticket. People v. Brisotti, 167 Misc.2d at 691, 635 N.Y.S.2d 442; People v. Benjamin Dev. Co., 155 Misc.2d 528, 530, 589 N.Y.S.2d 144 (Crim.Ct.1992); People v. DiLorenzo, 149 Misc.2d at 795, 566 N.Y.S.2d 458; People v. Gross, 148 Misc.2d at 239-40, 560 N.Y.S.2......
-
People v. J & L Landscaping, Inc., 2007 NY Slip Op 51389(U) (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 7/19/2007)
...to contest jurisdiction, the issue of whether the corporation was properly served is rendered irrelevant. People v. Benjamin Development Co., 155 Misc 2d 528, 589 NYS2d 144 (Queens County 1992). Once a defendant appears, any defects in the service cannot be a jurisdictional bar to prosecuti......
-
People v. J & L Landscaping, Inc., 2006 NY Slip Op 51480(U) (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 7/28/2006), 2006SK019404.
...jurisdiction, the issue of whether the corporation was properly served with process is rendered irrelevant. People v. Benjamin Development Co., Inc., 155 Misc 2d 528, 589 NYS2d 144 (Queens County 1992). The basic prerequisites for jurisdiction in a criminal matter are the proper filing of t......