Summary
In Pine Co. v. McConnell (298 N.Y. 27, 30) decided in 1948, that court said: "It is unnecessary, at this time, to say whether and to what extent that ["doing business"] test may be relaxed in reliance upon the constitutional principles recently announced by the Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington (326 U.S. 310)."
Summary of this case from Mirabella v. Banco Ind., ArgentinaOpinion
Argued May 17, 1948
Decided June 4, 1948
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, PECORA, J.
Edward K. Hanlon and Quentin J. De Fazio for appellants, appearing specially.
Hyman D. Lehrich for respondent.
Personal jurisdiction of defendants was properly obtained by substituted service under section 229-b of the Civil Practice Act. Defendants' local activities amply satisfied the long-recognized test of what constitutes engaging in business, as laid down in the decisions of this 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 what extent that test may be relaxed in reliance upon the constitutional principles recently announced by the Supreme Court in International Shoe Co. v. Washington ( 326 U.S. 310).
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the question certified answered in the affirmative.
LOUGHRAN, Ch. J., LEWIS, CONWAY, DESMOND, THACHER, DYE and FULD, JJ., concur.
Order affirmed, etc.