Last Review
Last Update

Statutes

"

Corporation

A foreign corporation shall not do business in this state until it has been authorized to do so under NY Business Corporation §1301.

A foreign corporation doing business in this state without authority may not maintain any action or special proceeding in this state unless and until the corporation has been authorized to do business in this state and it has paid all fees and taxes, as well as penalties and interest charges. This prohibition applies to any successor in interest of such foreign corporation. NY Business Corporation §1312

Limited Liability Company

Before doing business in this state, a foreign limited liability company shall apply for authority to do business in this state under NY Limited Liability Company Law §802.

A foreign limited liability company doing business in this state without having received a certificate of authority to do business in this state may not maintain any action, suit or special proceeding in any court of this state unless and until such limited liability company shall have received a certificate of authority in this state. NY Limited Liability Company Law §808 "

Cases

"

A foreign corporation that is ""doing business"" in New York but is unauthorized, is barred from maintaining an action in New York unless and until it has been authorized to do business in New York and made payment of the requisite taxes and fees. NY Business Corporation Law § 1312 (New York's so-called ""door closing"" statute). However, in order to be considered to be ""doing business"" within the state, a foreign corporation's activities must be more than just casual or occasional and, rather, must be ""systematic and regular"" so as to manifest continuity of activity in New York. Alicanto S.A. v. Woolverton, 129 A.D.2d 601, 514 N.Y.S.2d 96, 97 (2d Dep't 1987). See e.g., Uribe v. Merchants Bank of New York, 266 A.D.2d 21, 697 N.Y.S.2d 279 (1st Dep't 1999)(foreign corporation not deemed to be ""doing business"" in NY where it does not maintain an office or telephone listing in NY, does not own property or have employees within the state, does not advertise or maintain any bank accounts in NY); Reese v. Harper Surface Finishing Systems, 129 A.D.2d 159, 517 N.Y.S.2d 522 (2d Dep't 1987)(Connecticut corporation that did not have offices, bank accounts, property, telephone listings or employees in New York and derived only 1% to 6% of its sales from New York customers was not doing business in New York as contemplated by BCL § 1312); Colonial Mortgage Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 57 A.D.2d 1046, 395 N.Y.S.2d 798 (4th Dep't 1977)(foreign corporation not ""doing business"" in NY where it did not maintain a bank account, own real property, maintain an inventory of securities, or an office for the purpose of transacting business, nor did it have a telephone listing, advertise for the sale of securities or employ any New York resident, even though its volume of sales in NY was over $40 million and the contract in question was made in NY).<"

Comments

A foreign corporation's noncompliance with New York's "door closing" statute is an affirmative defense and the defendant bears the burden of proving the foreign corporate plaintiff's noncompliance. Domino Media, Inc. v. Kranis, 9 F. Supp.2d 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), aff'd 173 F.3d 843 (2d Cir. 1999); Alicanto S.A. v. Woolverton, 129 A.D.2d 601, 514 N.Y.S.2d 96, 97 (2d Dep't 1987). CPLR § 302(a)(1), which requires that a non-domiciliary merely "transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state" in order to serve as a basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction, has been consistently held by the courts to require a far less level of business activity within the State than the requirements of BCL § 1312. See Colonial Mortgage Co. v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n, 57 A.D.2d 1046, 395 N.Y.S.2d 798 (4th Dep't 1977)("the incidents of business transacted in New York by a foreign corporation may be sufficient to subject it to service of New York process (CPLR 302) and yet insufficient to require it to take out a certificate authorizing it to do business in New York”); Reese v. Harper Surface Finishing Systems, 129 A.D.2d 159, 517 N.Y.S.2d 522 (2d Dep't 1987)(same).

Contributors

The statutory information was edited and reviewed with the support of MultiState

Become a Content Contributor

The State Law Compendium is made possible through the cooperation, dedication and ongoing efforts of attorney’s who provide and update its statues, cases and comments. Attorneys who would like to volunteer to develop or update compendium content are welcome to contact us to learn more.