Neu v. Teen Time, Inc.

9 A.D.2d 961, 195 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5283

Opinion

Appeal from so much of a resettled order as denied a motion to vacate the service of the summons and complaint on appellant, a foreign corporation, on the ground that it was not “ doing business ” here. Resettled order modified by striking therefrom everything beginning with the word “ denied ” in the second ordering paragraph and ending with the words the Official Referee and by substituting therefor the word granted ”. As so modified, resettled order insofar as appealed from affirmed, without costs. In our opinion, appellant was not “ doing business ” in this State (Miller v. Surf Props., 4 N Y 2d 475; Pennrich & Go. v. Juniata Hosiery Mills, 247 N. Y. 592; Hamlin v. Barrett & Go., 246 N. Y. 554). Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur. [18 Misc 2d 234.]

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

Neu v. Teen Time, Inc., 9 A.D.2d 961, 195 N.Y.S.2d 670, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

9 A.D.2d 961 (Neu v. Teen Time, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pennrich & Co. v. Juniata Hosiery Mills, Inc.
161 N.E. 195 (New York Court of Appeals, 1928)
Hamlin v. G. E. Barrett & Co.
159 N.E. 648 (New York Court of Appeals, 1927)
Neu v. Teen Time, Inc.
18 Misc. 2d 234 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)