Goldberger Construction Corp. v. Edmund J. Rappoli Co.

New York Supreme Court

Goldberger Construction Corp. v. Edmund J. Rappoli Co.

169 Misc. 40, 6 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1872

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 8, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 Misc. 40 (Goldberger Construction Corp. v. Edmund J. Rappoli Co.) 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

Goldberger Construction Corp. v. Edmund J. Rappoli Co., 169 Misc. 40, 6 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1872 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Schmuck, J.

The defendant seeks by this motion to set aside and vacate the service of the summons and complaint on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and that the service was made without the jurisdiction of this court. With each of these contentions the court is in disagreement. The court has jurisdiction over the person of the defendant because it is doing business in this State. According to the authorities defining when a person, natural or legal, is deemed to be doing business so as to be amenable to civil process, the-defendant must be considered as so engaged. (Tauza v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N. Y. 259; Hartstein v. Seidenbach’s, Inc., 129 Misc. 687; International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 589.) It is the general contractor for the erection of the Cadet Armory at West Point, the material needed for construction is partly purchased in this State, the subcontract between plaintiff and defendant which is the basis of this action was entered into in this State and generally the defendant is so conducting itself that in law it must be considered as doing business in the State.

The contention that the court has no jurisdiction over the territory where the service was made is lacking in conviction. Subdivision 27 of section 22 of the State Law of the State of New York was the means by which certain tracts of land at West Point, Orange county, were ceded to the United States. In doing so a clear reservation of the right to serve process, civil or criminal, except as it might affect the property of the United States, was made. As this action is brought to recover a sum of money and in no wise concerns any property of the United States by means of the reservation contained in sections 22 and 23 of the State Law, this court has jurisdiction of the action and the nature of the action cannot be said to be exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. (Matter of Kernan, 247 App. Div. 664; affd., 272 N. Y. 560.)

Motion denied. Settle order.

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

Schmuck, J.

The defendant seeks by this motion to set aside and vacate the service of the summons and complaint on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and that the service was made without the jurisdiction of this court. With each of these contentions the court is in disagreement. The court has jurisdiction over the person of the defendant because it is doing business in this State. According to the authorities defining when a person, natural or legal, is deemed to be doing business so as to be amenable to civil process, the-defendant must be considered as so engaged. (Tauza v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N. Y. 259; Hartstein v. Seidenbach’s, Inc., 129 Misc. 687; International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 589.) It is the general contractor for the erection of the Cadet Armory at West Point, the material needed for construction is partly purchased in this State, the subcontract between plaintiff and defendant which is the basis of this action was entered into in this State and generally the defendant is so conducting itself that in law it must be considered as doing business in the State.

The contention that the court has no jurisdiction over the territory where the service was made is lacking in conviction. Subdivision 27 of section 22 of the State Law of the State of New York was the means by which certain tracts of land at West Point, Orange county, were ceded to the United States. In doing so a clear reservation of the right to serve process, civil or criminal, except as it might affect the property of the United States, was made. As this action is brought to recover a sum of money and in no wise concerns any property of the United States by means of the reservation contained in sections 22 and 23 of the State Law, this court has jurisdiction of the action and the nature of the action cannot be said to be exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. (Matter of Kernan, 247 App. Div. 664; affd., 272 N. Y. 560.)

Motion denied. Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 Misc. 40, 6 N.Y.S.2d 472, 1938 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldberger-construction-corp-v-edmund-j-rappoli-co-nysupct-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack