Legal Opinion

Goldberger Construction Corp. v. Edmund J. Rappoli Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided July 8, 1938PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtSchmuck, J.

The defendant seeks by this motion to set aside and vacate the service of the summons and complaint on the ground that the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant and that the service was made without the jurisdiction of this court. With each of these contentions the court is in disagreement. The court has jurisdiction over the person of the defendant because it is doing business in this State. According to the authorities defining when a person, natural or legal, is deemed to be doing business so as to be amenable to civil process, the-defendant must be considered as so…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Tauza v. . Susquehanna Coal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
  2. International Harvester Co. of America v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1914
  3. Matter of KernanNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
  4. People ex rel. Kernan v. KernanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
  5. Hartstein v. Seidenbach's, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. In re Charles B.New York City Family Court · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API