Ferretti v. Tech Laboratories, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferretti v. Tech Laboratories, Inc.

284 A.D. 904, 134 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4016

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 25, 1954·Published

Opinion

In an action against a foreign corporation, not authorized to do business in the State of New York, order denying defendant’s motion pursuant to section 237-a of the Civil Practice Act, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs. The record establishes that defendant was not doing business in the State of New York at the time of the transactions set forth in the moving affidavits, nor at the time of the commencement of the action. (Cf. Tama v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N. Y. 259; Chaplin v. Selznick, 293 N. Y. 529, and Elish v. St. Louis Southwestern By. Co., 305 N. Y. 267.) The retention by the defendant of the plaintiff as a “Government Contract specialist” and the services performed by him did not constitute him a managing agent, nor subject the defendant to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State. (Cf. Wollman v. Newark Star Pub. Co., 229 N. Y. 590.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action against a foreign corporation, not authorized to do business in the State of New York, order denying defendant’s motion pursuant to section 237-a of the Civil Practice Act, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs. The record establishes that defendant was not doing business in the State of New York at the time of the transactions set forth in the moving affidavits, nor at the time of the commencement of the action. (Cf. Tama v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N. Y. 259; Chaplin v. Selznick, 293 N. Y. 529, and Elish v. St. Louis Southwestern By. Co., 305 N. Y. 267.) The retention by the defendant of the plaintiff as a “Government Contract specialist” and the services performed by him did not constitute him a managing agent, nor subject the defendant to the jurisdiction of the courts of this State. (Cf. Wollman v. Newark Star Pub. Co., 229 N. Y. 590.) Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.

Ferretti v. Tech Laboratories, Inc., 284 A.D. 904, 134 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4016 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

284 A.D. 904 (Ferretti v. Tech Laboratories, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related