Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Melvin Pine & Co. v. McConnell 298 N.Y. 27

← Cases

Melvin Pine & Co. v. McConnell

298 N.Y. 27 Court N.Y. Decision date 1948-06-04 English

Judges LoughraN, Cb. J., Lewis, Couway, DesmoND, Thacheb, Dye and Fuld, JJ., concur.

Contents

Majority

p. 27
Melvin Pine & Co., Inc., Respondent, v. George et al., as Copartners under the Firm Name of Desmond-Stephan Mfg. Co ., Appellants.
Argued May 17, 1948;
decided June 4, 1948.
p. 29
Edward K. Hanlon and Quentin J. De Fazio for appellants,
Hyman D. Lehrich for respondent.

Headnote

Defendants have been and are doing business in the State of New York within the meaning of section 229-b of the Civil Practice Act. {Yeckes-Eichenbaum, Inc., v. McCarthy, 290 N. Y. 437 ; Chaplin v. Selmick, 293 N. Y.
p. 30
529 ; Taum v. Susquehanna Goal Co., 220 N. Y. 259 ; Holser v. Dodge Bros., 233 N. Y. 216 ; Cochran Box & Mfg. Co. v. Monroe Binder Bd. Co., 197 App. Div. 221 , 232 N. Y. 503 ; Society Milion Athena, Inc., v. National Bank of Greece, 166 Mise. 190, 254 App. Div. 728 .)

Personal jurisdiction of defendants was properly obtained by substituted service under section 229-b of tbe Civil Practice Act. Defendants’ local activities amply satisfied tbe long-recognized test of wbat constitutes engaging in business, as laid down in tbe decisions of tbis court. (See, e.g., Chaplin v. Selznick, 293 N. Y. 529 , 534; Tauza v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N. Y. 259 .) It is unnecessary, at this time, to say whether and to wbat extent that test may be relaxed in reliance upon tbe constitutional principles recently announced by tbe Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington ( 326 U. S. 310 ).

Tbe order of tbe Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and tbe question certified answered in tbe affirmative.

LoughraN, Cb. J., Lewis, Couway, DesmoND, Thacheb, Dye and Fuld, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, etc.

Cases cited