Hogan v. Woodside Center Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hogan v. Woodside Center Corp.

278 A.D. 944, 104 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5317

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

DecidedJune 4, 1951

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D. 944 (Hogan v. Woodside Center Corp.) 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

Hogan v. Woodside Center Corp., 278 A.D. 944, 104 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5317 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying motion to set aside the service of the summons and complaint on the grounds that appellant, a foreign corporation, is not engaged in business within this State, and that the person served is not an officer, director or managing agent of that corporation, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, with leave to appellant to answer within ten days after the entry of the order hereon. In our opinion this record establishes that appellant is engaged in business in the State of New York (Tama V. Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N. Y. 259, 268; Sterling Novelty Corp. v. Frank & Kirsch Distr. Co., 299 N. Y. 208, 210; 'People’s Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U. S. 79, 86); that its employee served with the summons is its managing agent within the State (Siless v. Beading Maid, Hosiery Mills, 242 App. Div. 803); and that the service of the summons was made in compliance with subdivision 3 of section 229 of the Civil Practice Act. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 1025.]

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

Order denying motion to set aside the service of the summons and complaint on the grounds that appellant, a foreign corporation, is not engaged in business within this State, and that the person served is not an officer, director or managing agent of that corporation, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, with leave to appellant to answer within ten days after the entry of the order hereon. In our opinion this record establishes that appellant is engaged in business in the State of New York (Tama V. Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N. Y. 259, 268; Sterling Novelty Corp. v. Frank & Kirsch Distr. Co., 299 N. Y. 208, 210; 'People’s Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 246 U. S. 79, 86); that its employee served with the summons is its managing agent within the State (Siless v. Beading Maid, Hosiery Mills, 242 App. Div. 803); and that the service of the summons was made in compliance with subdivision 3 of section 229 of the Civil Practice Act. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 1025.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 944, 104 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hogan-v-woodside-center-corp-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack