Emerson Quiet Kool Corp. v. Eskind

New York Supreme Court

Emerson Quiet Kool Corp. v. Eskind

32 Misc. 2d 1037, 228 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2345

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 21, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 32 Misc. 2d 1037 (Emerson Quiet Kool Corp. v. Eskind) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Emerson Quiet Kool Corp. v. Eskind, 32 Misc. 2d 1037, 228 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2345 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Harold A. Stevens, J.

Defendant, a nonresident partnership, not doing business within this State, appears specially and moves to vacate service of process on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction. Plaintiff, a New Jersey corporation, opposes the application, contending that, under the terms of a distributor franchise agreement, the defendant named an agent to receive process and that when the procedure as therein set forth was complied with, this court acquired jurisdiction. Plaintiff asserts it served process in compliance with the terms of the agreement.

[1038]*1038We are of the opinion, under the circumstances here, that is, neither party is a resident of or doing business within the State, and the agreement was not executed within the State, and there was no personal service made, that the designation was ineffectual to confer jurisdiction. Motion granted.

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

Harold A. Stevens, J.

Defendant, a nonresident partnership, not doing business within this State, appears specially and moves to vacate service of process on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction. Plaintiff, a New Jersey corporation, opposes the application, contending that, under the terms of a distributor franchise agreement, the defendant named an agent to receive process and that when the procedure as therein set forth was complied with, this court acquired jurisdiction. Plaintiff asserts it served process in compliance with the terms of the agreement.

[1038]*1038We are of the opinion, under the circumstances here, that is, neither party is a resident of or doing business within the State, and the agreement was not executed within the State, and there was no personal service made, that the designation was ineffectual to confer jurisdiction. Motion granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Misc. 2d 1037, 228 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emerson-quiet-kool-corp-v-eskind-nysupct-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack