United Env't Techniques, Inc. v. State of New York Dep't of Health, 666 N.E.2d 552 (NY 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
United Env't Techniques, Inc. v. State of New York Dep't of Health, 666 N.E.2d 552 (NY 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re New Jersey Window Sales, Inc.
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2001 · confidence medium
Techniques v State of New York Dept. of Health ( 88 NY2d 824, 825 [1996]), the Court of Appeals, without discussion, reversed a First Department decision that relied on the Tri-Terminal case, and ruled that a foreign corporation that failed “to file an amended certificate to do business in New York, as required by Business Corporation Law § 1309 * * * lacked capacity to sue in New York.” (Accord Northway Exch. v Dufrane, 258 AD2d 766 [3d Dept 1999]; Scaffold-Russ Dilworth v Shared Mgt.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of United Environmental Techniques, Inc.
v.
State of New York Department of Health
New York Court of Appeals.
Apr 25, 1996.
666 N.E.2d 552
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney-General, New York City (Barbara K. Hathaway and Victoria Graffeo of counsel), for appellant., Andrew M. Friedman, Richmond Hill, and Marvin Friedman for respondent.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the petition dismissed.

United Environmental Techniques, Inc. sued to compel the State Department of Health to grant it a hearing with respect to the Department’s revocation of the provisional approval for United to operate an asbestos training facility (10 NYCRR 73.8 [a]). Supreme Court granted the petition and the Appellate Division affirmed. This Court granted leave to appeal, and we now reverse. Because United Environmental Techniques, Inc. is a foreign corporation which has failed to file an amended certificate to do business in New York, as required by Business Corporation Law § 1309, it lacked capacity to sue in New York (Business Corporation Law § 1312 [a]) and the courts below should not have ruled on the merits of this matter.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur in memorandum.

Order reversed, etc.