Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Queen City Marina, Inc.

New York County Courts

Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Queen City Marina, Inc.

45 Misc. 2d 453, 256 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2354

CourtNew York County Courts

DecidedJanuary 19, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 45 Misc. 2d 453 (Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Queen City Marina, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York County Courts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Queen City Marina, Inc., 45 Misc. 2d 453, 256 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2354 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Robert J. Trainor, J.

Plaintiff, a foreign corporation, moves for an order vacating an ex parte order of this court made November 12,1964, pursuant to CPLR 8501. Plaintiff’s affidavit asserts a license to do business in this State since 1896. In view of the attorney’s affidavit to this effect, the court will not require the filing of a certified copy of the license.

Defendant opposes the application in reliance upon Colgate Palmolive Peet Co. v. Planet Serv. Corp. (173 Misc. 494) which held that a general business corporation was required to post security pursuant to section 1522 of the Civil Practice Act. This decision was contrary to those in Standard Mar. Ins. Co. v. Verity (243 App. Div. 639) and Household Fin. Corp. v. Worden (206 Misc. 614) on the grounds that the others were respectively an insurance' corporation and a banking corporation, both requiring assets in the State.

The adoption of the Civil Practice Law and Rules substantially changed the language of the former provision and CPLR 8501 presently exempts from security for costs “ a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the state ”. The Law Revision Advisory Committee reasoned that the licensing makes the foreign corporation a domestic corporation for the purposes of this provision. (15 Standard Civil Practice Service, p. 5491.)

Motion granted. 'The order heretofore entered on November 12, 1964 is recalled.

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

Robert J. Trainor, J.

Plaintiff, a foreign corporation, moves for an order vacating an ex parte order of this court made November 12,1964, pursuant to CPLR 8501. Plaintiff’s affidavit asserts a license to do business in this State since 1896. In view of the attorney’s affidavit to this effect, the court will not require the filing of a certified copy of the license.

Defendant opposes the application in reliance upon Colgate Palmolive Peet Co. v. Planet Serv. Corp. (173 Misc. 494) which held that a general business corporation was required to post security pursuant to section 1522 of the Civil Practice Act. This decision was contrary to those in Standard Mar. Ins. Co. v. Verity (243 App. Div. 639) and Household Fin. Corp. v. Worden (206 Misc. 614) on the grounds that the others were respectively an insurance' corporation and a banking corporation, both requiring assets in the State.

The adoption of the Civil Practice Law and Rules substantially changed the language of the former provision and CPLR 8501 presently exempts from security for costs “ a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the state ”. The Law Revision Advisory Committee reasoned that the licensing makes the foreign corporation a domestic corporation for the purposes of this provision. (15 Standard Civil Practice Service, p. 5491.)

Motion granted. 'The order heretofore entered on November 12, 1964 is recalled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 Misc. 2d 453, 256 N.Y.S.2d 999, 1965 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pittsburgh-plate-glass-co-v-queen-city-marina-inc-nycountyct-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack