Colbert v. International Security Bureau, Inc.

406 N.E.2d 1080, 49 N.Y.2d 988, 429 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2345
New York Court of Appeals·Decided April 29, 1980·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[989]*989OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the question certified answered in the affirmative.

Based on the record before us, we agree with the Appellate Division that the employee receiving service possessed sufficient authority to accept service of process on behalf of appellant Southern Railway Co. (See Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co., 50 NY2d 265.)

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuschberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Colbert v. International Security Bureau, Inc., 406 N.E.2d 1080, 49 N.Y.2d 988, 429 N.Y.S.2d 187, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2345 (N.Y. 1980).

406 N.E.2d 1080 (Colbert v. International Security Bureau, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Daniels v. King Chicken & Stuff, Inc.
35 A.D.3d 345 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Colbert v. International Security Bureau, Inc.
79 A.D.2d 448 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)