Melvin Pine & Co. v. McConnell
This text of 298 N.Y. 27 (Melvin Pine & Co. v. McConnell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Personal jurisdiction of defendants was properly obtained by substituted service under section 229-b of tbe Civil Practice Act. Defendants’ local activities amply satisfied tbe long-recognized test of wbat constitutes engaging in business, as laid down in tbe decisions of tbis court. (See, e.g., Chaplin v. Selznick, 293 N. Y. 529, 534; Tauza v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N. Y. 259.) It is unnecessary, at this time, to say whether and to wbat extent that test may be relaxed in reliance upon tbe constitutional principles recently announced by tbe Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington (326 U. S. 310).
Tbe order of tbe Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and tbe question certified answered in tbe affirmative.
Order affirmed, etc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
298 N.Y. 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melvin-pine-co-v-mcconnell-ny-1948.