BANKS v. MTA (2023)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Suzanne Adams, J.), entered January 11, 2022, which granted plaintiff's motion to compel the appearance of defendant MTA Bus Company (MTABC) and deemed the summons and verified complaint served on MTABC and directed it to serve an answer, and denied MTABC's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint as against it for lack of personal jurisdiction, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, plaintiff's motion denied, and MTABC's cross-motion granted.  The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint against MTABC.

Supreme Court should have denied plaintiff's motion and granted MTABC's cross-motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction because plaintiff failed to meet his burden of showing that MTABC was served in accordance with CPLR 311(a)(1) (see Commissiong v. Mark Greenberg Real Estate Co. LLC, 203 A.D.3d 657, 658, 163 N.Y.S.3d 403 [1st Dept. 2022], lv dismissed 38 N.Y.3d 1119, 172 N.Y.S.3d 671, 192 N.E.3d 1150 [2022];  Emaar Rak F.Z.E. v. Rak Tourism Inv. F.Z.C., 177 A.D.3d 538, 539–540, 112 N.Y.S.3d 730 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 905, 2020 WL 3056214 [2020];  Bezoza v. Bezoza, 83 A.D.3d 578, 579, 921 N.Y.S.2d 247 [1st Dept. 2011]).  The affidavit of service states that on July 15, 2019, plaintiff's process server served the summons and verified complaint on MTABC at 130 Livingston Street in Brooklyn, not at its principal place of business at 2 Broadway in Manhattan.  That service of process was effectuated on the MTA, who was previously a defendant in this action, at 2 Broadway on the same day that MTABC was purportedly served in Brooklyn is of no moment, because the process server did not aver, as required by CPLR 311(a)(1), that the individual he served was an authorized representative of MTABC.  The affidavit of service states only that the server delivered a copy of the summons and complaint to the “recipient's actual place of business” and does not mention any individual.  Further, plaintiff's counsel's affirmation in support of his motion merely avers in conclusory fashion that the individual was authorized to accept service on behalf of MTABC as well as the MTA at 2 Broadway.

In opposition to plaintiff's motion and in support of its cross-motion, MTABC submitted the affidavit of its associate staff analyst who explained that although MTABC is a subsidiary of the MTA, they are “distinct legal entities which must be sued and served separately,” they “are not responsible for each other's torts,” and they “maintain entirely separate offices and must be served at separate locations within 2 Broadway” because if “service of process is served on the MTA at 2 Broadway ․ it generally will not be received by [MTABC].”  MTABC's affidavit is reinforced by the fact that the copy of the summons and complaint served at 2 Broadway was stamped “ACCEPTED FOR MTA ONLY.”