Sher v. Tilles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sher v. Tilles

5 A.D.2d 678, 168 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3797

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 A.D.2d 678 (Sher v. Tilles) 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

Sher v. Tilles, 5 A.D.2d 678, 168 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order which (1) granted respondent’s motion to confirm the report of an Official Referee to the effect that appellant, a foreign corporation, is subject to the jurisdiction of the court and that service of process upon it should not be vacated but sustained, (2) denied appellant’s cross motion to disaffirm said report, and (3) denied appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and with leave to appellant to answer the complaint within 10 days after entry of the order hereon. Although appellant’s only income-producing asset, a multiple apartment development, is located in Connecticut, the evidence that the conduct of virtually all appellant’s affairs, apart from the maintenance of the property and other limited duties of the superintendent at the development, takes place in or emanates from the office which appellant’s president maintains in this State, and the evidence to the effect that no officer, director or other official, of appellant may generally be expected to be found in Connecticut or otherwise than in New York, amply supported the determination that appellant does business in this jurisdiction with a fair degree of permanency and continuity, and not merely occasionally or casually, and is therefore amenable to process in this State.

Wenzel, Acting, P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order which (1) granted respondent’s motion to confirm the report of an Official Referee to the effect that appellant, a foreign corporation, is subject to the jurisdiction of the court and that service of process upon it should not be vacated but sustained, (2) denied appellant’s cross motion to disaffirm said report, and (3) denied appellant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and with leave to appellant to answer the complaint within 10 days after entry of the order hereon. Although appellant’s only income-producing asset, a multiple apartment development, is located in Connecticut, the evidence that the conduct of virtually all appellant’s affairs, apart from the maintenance of the property and other limited duties of the superintendent at the development, takes place in or emanates from the office which appellant’s president maintains in this State, and the evidence to the effect that no officer, director or other official, of appellant may generally be expected to be found in Connecticut or otherwise than in New York, amply supported the determination that appellant does business in this jurisdiction with a fair degree of permanency and continuity, and not merely occasionally or casually, and is therefore amenable to process in this State.

Wenzel, Acting, P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.2d 678, 168 N.Y.S.2d 361, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sher-v-tilles-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack