Ferriere v. Pete Sublett & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ferriere v. Pete Sublett & Co.

78 A.D.2d 834, 434 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13511

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 20, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 834 (Ferriere v. Pete Sublett & Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ferriere v. Pete Sublett & Co., 78 A.D.2d 834, 434 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13511 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 8, 1980, reversed, on the law and the facts, and the motion of defendant-respondent to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction unanimously denied, with costs and disbursements. Defendant-respondent has sufficiently projected itself into this State in connection with the subject matter of the litigation to have conferred jurisdiction on our courts. In addition, it still has on file a certificate of doing business here, and has designated the Secretary of State its agent to accept service of process in its behalf. (See Pohlers v Exeter Mfg. Co., 293 NY 274.) Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Markewich, Bloom and Yesawich, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 8, 1980, reversed, on the law and the facts, and the motion of defendant-respondent to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction unanimously denied, with costs and disbursements. Defendant-respondent has sufficiently projected itself into this State in connection with the subject matter of the litigation to have conferred jurisdiction on our courts. In addition, it still has on file a certificate of doing business here, and has designated the Secretary of State its agent to accept service of process in its behalf. (See Pohlers v Exeter Mfg. Co., 293 NY 274.) Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Sandler, Markewich, Bloom and Yesawich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 834, 434 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferriere-v-pete-sublett-co-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack