Miller v. Surf Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Surf Properties, Inc.

5 A.D.2d 684, 169 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3700

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.2d 684 (Miller v. Surf Properties, Inc.) 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

Miller v. Surf Properties, Inc., 5 A.D.2d 684, 169 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order of an Official Referee denying, after a hearing, a motion to set aside the service in this State of a summons on one claimed to be the managing agent of appellant, a Florida corporation. By stipulation of the parties the motion was referred to the Official Referee to hear and determine. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion.

Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Beldoek, J., dissent and vote to reverse the order and to grant the motion, with the following memorandum: On the facts here presented, appellant’s activities within this State do not constitute the doing of business here.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the appeal is from an order of an Official Referee denying, after a hearing, a motion to set aside the service in this State of a summons on one claimed to be the managing agent of appellant, a Florida corporation. By stipulation of the parties the motion was referred to the Official Referee to hear and determine. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion.

Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Nolan, P. J., and Beldoek, J., dissent and vote to reverse the order and to grant the motion, with the following memorandum: On the facts here presented, appellant’s activities within this State do not constitute the doing of business here.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 684, 169 N.Y.S.2d 430, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-surf-properties-inc-nyappdiv-1957.