Case Name: The Pittsburg Plate Glass Company, Respondent, v. David Ravitch et al., Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-03
Citations: 58 Misc. 191
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Pittsburg Plate Glass Company, Respondent, v. David Ravitch et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 58
Pages: 191–192

Head Matter:
The Pittsburg Plate Glass Company, Respondent, v. David Ravitch et al., Appellants.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
March, 1908.)
Foreign corporations — Actions and proceedings — Evidence and burden of proof — Authority to do business in this State.
Where, in an action by a foreign corporation, upon contract, the plaintiff’s allegation that it had obtained from the Secretary of State a certificate of compliance with the requirements of law to authorize it to do business in this State is denied and is not established by proof at the trial, the defendants are entitled to a dismissal of the complaint.
Appeal by the defendants from a judgment for $522.50 and costs, recovered in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, ninth district, borough of Manhattan, and from an order denying defendants’ motion for a new trial under section 254 of the Municipal Court Act.
Nicholas S. Aleinikoff, for appellants.
Phillips & Avery, for respondent.

Opinion:
MacLean, J.
In this action to recover for performance pursuant to a written contract with the defendants, the plaintiff, among other things, alleged that it was a foreign corporation and, as such, " prior to the times hereinafter mentioned, duly obtained from the Secretary of the State of New York, a certificate that plaintiff had complied with all the requirements of law to authorize it to do business in this State." This was- denied. Such allegation is essential as a condition precedent (Wood & Selick v. Ball, 190 N. Y. 217) and, being denied, an issue in the case. The motion to dismiss for failure of proof therefor at the close of the plaintiff's case should have been granted;, and, though not specifically moved at the close of the whole case, the defendants were entitled to the direction of a verdict pursuant to motion, the. plaintiff failing to prove its compliance with section 15 of the General Corporation Law, which " should be alleged and proved by a foreign corporation such as the plaintiff, in order to establish a cause of action in the courts of this State" (Wood & Selick v. Ball, supra, 225), the record disclosing no admission thereof. The judgment should, therefore, be reversed and the cause remanded.
Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
Gildersleeve, J., concurs.