Legal Opinion
Molina v. Hydraulic Press Manufacturing Co.
New York Supreme Court
Decided September 28, 1956PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCharles J. Beckinella, J.
This is a motion by the defendant, an Ohio corporation, to vacate the summons served upon it upon the grounds (a) that the defendant is a foreign corporation not doing business within the State of New York and (b) that the person upon whom the disputed service was made is not a person upon whom such service may be made pursuant to section 229 of the Civil Practice Act. As to the latter contention, it is immaterial who was served if the Ohio corporation is not doing business in New York (Ultramar Co. v. Minerals Separation, 236 N. Y. 647).
The challenged process was served upon Mr. Thomas Gf.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Tauza v. . Susquehanna Coal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Sterling Novelty Corp. v. Frank & Hirsch Distributing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1949
- Ultramar Company, Limited v. . Minerals Separation, Ltd.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
- Vassallo v. SlominAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1951
- Pennrich & Co. v. Juniata Hosiery Mills, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Potter's Photographic Applications Co. v. Ealing CorporationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1968
- Lane v. Vacation Charters, Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1990
- Wilcox-Gay Corp. v. Hosho of America, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1959