Legal Opinion · Dissent

Gillespie v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 17, 2011Published

1DissentGorski, J.

I respectfully dissent, inasmuch as I conclude that Supreme Court properly denied the pre-answer motion of defendant Grand Hotel Inter-Continental Paris SNC (Hotel) seeking to dismiss the amended complaint against it. As the majority states, “ ‘Business Corporation Law § 307 establishes a mandatory sequence and progression of service completion options to acquire jurisdiction over a foreign corporation not authorized to do business in New York’ ” (VanNorden v Mann Edge Tool Co., 77 AD3d 1157, 1158 [2010], quoting Stewart v Volkswagen of Am., 81 NY2d 203, 207 [1993]; see Business Corporation…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Flick v. Stewart-Warner Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1990
  2. Stewart v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1993
  3. VanNorden v. Mann Edge Tool Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API