SCAFFOLD RUSS DILWORTH LTD v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, Respondent. (1998)

Supreme Court properly granted the motion of Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland (defendant) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that plaintiff, a Canadian corporation that rents and sells scaffolding, could not maintain this action because it was “doing business in this state without authority” (Business Corporation Law § 1312[a] ).   The record establishes that plaintiff had rented scaffolding to contractors at eight public and private construction projects in New York in 1991 and 1992, and had leased a facility in the State for storage of scaffolding and accessories for use on construction projects.   Defendant met its burden of establishing that plaintiff's business activities in this State were “so systematic and regular as to manifest continuity of activity in the jurisdiction” (Construction Specialties v. Hartford Ins. Co., 97 A.D.2d 808, 468 N.Y.S.2d 675;  see, Interline Furniture v. Hodor Indus. Corp., 140 A.D.2d 307, 527 N.Y.S.2d 544;  Parkwood Furniture Co. v. OK Furniture Co., 76 A.D.2d 905, 429 N.Y.S.2d 240).

Order unanimously affirmed with costs.

MEMORANDUM: