Potter Real Estate Co. v. O & S Bearing & Mfg. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Potter Real Estate Co. v. O & S Bearing & Mfg. Co.

32 A.D.2d 883, 302 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3585

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

DecidedJune 27, 1969

DocketNo. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 883 (Potter Real Estate Co. v. O & S Bearing & Mfg. Co.) 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

Potter Real Estate Co. v. O & S Bearing & Mfg. Co., 32 A.D.2d 883, 302 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3585 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: The court should not have considered the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction until the plaintiff was permitted disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [d]). The plaintiff was entitled to the opportunity to show that defendant was transacting business in Hew York State and, therefore, subject to jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (subd. [a], par. 1). (Agrashell, Inc. v. Sirotta Co., 344 F. 2d 583; Crossley Glove Co. v. Wakefield Leathers, 30 A D 2d 598; Lohne v. City of New York, 25 A D 2d [884]*884440.) (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term dismissing complaint in action for commission.) Present—Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: The court should not have considered the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction until the plaintiff was permitted disclosure pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [d]). The plaintiff was entitled to the opportunity to show that defendant was transacting business in Hew York State and, therefore, subject to jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (subd. [a], par. 1). (Agrashell, Inc. v. Sirotta Co., 344 F. 2d 583; Crossley Glove Co. v. Wakefield Leathers, 30 A D 2d 598; Lohne v. City of New York, 25 A D 2d [884]*884440.) (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term dismissing complaint in action for commission.) Present—Goldman, P. J., Marsh, Witmer, Moule and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 883, 302 N.Y.S.2d 178, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potter-real-estate-co-v-o-s-bearing-mfg-co-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack