Submitted by David Jaroslawicz, for Appellant.
Submitted by Robert J. Giuffra, for Respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the negative. Plaintiff does not contest that it failed to file an affidavit of compliance as required by Business Corporation Law § 307(c)(2) . That defect is jurisdictional and does not constitute a "mere irregularit[y]" subject to cure (see, Flick v Stewart-Warner Corp., 76 NY2d 50, 57 [holding that strict compliance with the procedures of Business Corporation Law § 307 is require d to effect service on an unauthorized foreign corporation]; Stewart v Volkswagen of Am., 81 NY2d 203, 207 [noting "mandatory sequence and progression of service completion options" necessary to acquire jurisdiction over foreign corporation not authorized to do business in New York]; David v Fuchs, 204 AD2d 253, 254, lv denied in part and dismissed in part 84 NY2d 1003; Smolen v Cosco, Inc., 207 AD2d 441). Thus, plaintiff's failure to serve defendant Truxmore Inc. in accordance with the strict requirements of Business Corporation Law § 307(c)(2) divested Supreme Court of jurisdiction over defendant and the motion to dismiss was properly granted.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in the negative, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
Decided July 6, 1995