New York Consolidated Laws
N.Y. Business Corporation Law § 307 (2026)
Service of process on unauthorized foreign corporation
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NY-LEGnysenate.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 307. Service of process on unauthorized foreign corporation. (a) In any case in which a non-domiciliary would be subject to the personal or other jurisdiction of the courts of this state under article three of the civil practice law and rules, a foreign corporation not authorized to do business in this state is subject to a like jurisdiction. In any such case, process against such foreign corporation may be served upon the secretary of state as its agent. Such process may issue in any court in this state having jurisdiction of the subject matter. (b) Service of such process upon the secretary of state shall be made in the manner provided by subparagraph one or two of this paragraph. Either option of service authorized pursuant to this paragraph shall be available at no extra cost to the consumer. (1) Personally delivering to and leaving with him 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, which fee shall be a taxable disbursement. (2) Electronically submitting a copy of the process to the department of state together with the statutory fee, which fee shall be a taxable disbursement, through an electronic system operated by the department of state. Such service shall be sufficient if notice thereof and a copy of the process are: (1) Delivered personally without this state to such foreign corporation by a person and in the manner authorized to serve process by law of the jurisdiction in which service is made, or (2) Sent by or on behalf of the plaintiff to such foreign corporation by registered mail with return receipt requested, at the post office address specified for the purpose of mailing process, on file in the department of state, or with any official or body performing the equivalent function, in the jurisdiction of its incorporation, or if no such address is there specified, to its registered or other office there specified, or if no such office is there specified, to the last address of such foreign corporation known to the plaintiff. (c) 1. Where service of a copy of process was effected by personal service, proof of service shall be by affidavit of compliance with this section filed, together with the process, within thirty days after such service, with the clerk of the court in which the action or special proceeding is pending. Service of process shall be complete ten days after such papers are filed with the clerk of the court. 2. Where service of a copy of process was effected by mailing in accordance with this section, proof of service shall be by affidavit of compliance with this section filed, together with the process, within thirty days after receipt of the return receipt signed by the foreign corporation, or other official proof of delivery or of the original envelope mailed. If a copy of the process is mailed in accordance with this section, there shall be filed with the affidavit of compliance either the return receipt signed by such foreign corporation or other official proof of delivery or, if acceptance was refused by it, the original envelope with a notation by the postal authorities that acceptance was refused. If acceptance was refused, a copy of the notice and process together with notice of the mailing by registered mail and refusal to accept shall be promptly sent to such foreign corporation at the same address by ordinary mail and the affidavit of compliance shall so state. Service of process shall be complete ten days after such papers are filed with the clerk of the court. The refusal to accept delivery of the registered mail or to sign the return receipt shall not affect the validity of the service and such foreign corporation refusing to accept such registered mail shall be charged with knowledge of the contents thereof. (d) Service made as provided in this section shall have the same force as personal service made within this state. (e) Nothing in this section shall affect the right to serve process in any other manner permitted by law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Stewart v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 613 N.E.2d 518 (NY 1993).
Stewart v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 613 N.E.2d 518 (NY 1993). “VWAG claimed respondents-plaintiffs failed to acquire personal jurisdiction over it in accordance with Business Corporation Law § 307 (b) (2). We conclude that plaintiffs have not satisfied the statute’s strictly specified service of process prescriptions necessary to acquire…”
Stewart v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 181 A.D.2d 4 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992). “Thus, the plaintiffs, in attempting to serve VWAG with process in this action, utilized the procedure set forth in Business Corporation Law § 307 for service of process on a foreign corporation unauthorized to do business in this State.”
Flick v. Stewart-Warner Corp., 555 N.E.2d 907 (NY 1990). “Plaintiff, mistakenly believing that defendant was authorized to do business in the State, commenced this action pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306 instead of Business Corporation Law § 307 *53 which governs service on unauthorized foreign corporations.”
VanNorden v. Mann Edge Tool Co., 77 A.D.3d 1157 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). “In June 2006, plaintiffs purportedly effectuated service upon defendant Mann Edge Tool Company (hereinafter defendant), an unauthorized foreign corporation, pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 307. Issue was not joined and, in July 2007, Supreme Court granted plaintiffs’…”
Breer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 184 Misc. 2d 916 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2000). “Worthington claims, however, that service upon it, as an unauthorized foreign corporation, had to be made in compliance with Business Corporation Law § 307. Worthington further argues that plaintiffs failed to effectuate service in compliance with that section, and in…”
Friedman v. Goldstein, 2020 NY Slip Op 07548 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). “Business Corporation Law § 307 provides for service of process on unauthorized foreign corporations.”
Richards v. Hedman Resources Ltd., 2022 NY Slip Op 02663 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). “A business corporation may also be served pursuant to [Business Corporation Law §§ 306 or 307]." Plaintiffs do not dispute that Business Corporation Law § 307, which governs service of process on an unauthorized foreign corporation, applies here.”
Reynolds v. Koh, 109 A.D.2d 97 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). “Nissan contended that although service comported with the requirements of Business Corporation Law § 307, service was ineffective due to plaintiffs’ failure to serve through the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs as required by an international treaty known as the Convention…”
Marine Midland Realty Credit Corp. v. Welbilt Corp., 145 A.D.2d 84 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989). “At issue on this appeal is whether personal jurisdiction was obtained over defendant, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in this State, by service of process in accordance with Business Corporation Law § 307, which provides the appropriate method of service on the…”
Van Wert v. Black & Decker, Inc., 246 A.D.2d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). “In its brief to this Court, defendant argues that service was not properly effected because it was not done in strict compliance with Business Corporation Law § 307, which defines the procedure to be followed when serving an unauthorized foreign corporation via the Secretary of…”
Flannery v. Gen. Motors Corp., 214 A.D.2d 497 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). “However, while, as the concurrence points out, service was made upon the intended but misnamed defendant in the proper manner, there was a failure by the plaintiff to strictly comply with the requirements of Business Corporation Law, § 307, since plaintiff never filed an…”
Flannery v. Gen. Motors Corp., 655 N.E.2d 176 (NY 1995). “Plaintiff does not contest that he failed to file an affidavit of compliance as required by Business Corporation Law § 307 (c) (2). That defect is jurisdictional and does not constitute a "mere irregularity]” subject to cure (see, Flick v StewartWamer Corp.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.