## Facts

- A concert promoter contracted with a singer to perform concerts at the Providence, Rhode Island Civic Center on specified dates.
- The performance contracts did not designate any person or entity to accept service of process on the performer’s behalf.
- After a dispute arose concerning the concert arrangements, the promoter sued the performer in New York.
- The promoter attempted to serve the summons and complaint by delivering them to the performer’s manager, Miles J. Lourie.
- The performer appeared specially to contest personal jurisdiction and moved to dismiss for improper service.
- The promoter argued that the manager was an agent for service because of his role in the performer’s business affairs and contracting.
- The promoter also argued that the performer ratified the service because counsel contacted the promoter shortly after the manager was served.

## Issues

1. Whether service on the performer’s manager constituted valid service on the performer as service on an “agent authorized by appointment or by law.”
2. Whether the performer’s post-service conduct (including counsel’s prompt contact and special appearance) ratified the manager’s receipt of process so as to cure defective service.

## Decision

- The court granted the performer’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service.
- The court held the manager was not an agent authorized by appointment or by law to accept service of process for the performer.
- The court held that counsel’s post-service contact did not ratify the defective service or otherwise validate it.
- The dismissal was jurisdictional rather than a determination on the merits, leaving the promoter free to attempt proper service.

## Legal Principles

- Service on an “agent authorized by appointment or by law” requires proof of actual authorization to accept service; authority to negotiate or manage business matters is insufficient.
- An implied appointment to accept service will not be found from general managerial responsibilities absent strong evidence that the principal specifically empowered the agent to receive legal process.
- Actual notice of a lawsuit does not, by itself, cure noncompliance with statutory service requirements.
- Ratification is narrowly applied in the service-of-process context; a defendant’s response through counsel, including a special appearance to contest jurisdiction, does not retroactively validate improper service.
- Proper service is a prerequisite to personal jurisdiction; failure to serve in a statutorily authorized manner requires dismissal.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the action because serving the performer’s manager did not constitute service on an authorized agent for process, and the performer’s subsequent awareness of the suit and counsel’s contact did not ratify or cure the defective service required for personal jurisdiction.


Edward V. Green Enters., Inc. v. Manilow, 103 Misc. 2d 869, 427 N.Y.S.2d 199 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 1980)