Legal Opinion
Dana v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided April 6, 1961PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Per curiam
It has been held that the mere solicitation of business for an out-of-State concern is not enough to constitute doing business in this State (Miller v. Surf Properties, 4 N Y 2d 475; Yeckes-Eichenbaum, Inc. v. McCarthy, 290 N. Y. 437; Tauza v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 220 N. Y. 259). In International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington (326 U. S. 310, 314) the United States Supreme Court said that “ solicitation * * * plus some additional activities there are sufficient to render the corporation amenable to suit”. The only activities conducted in New York, apart from the solicitation of prospective…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Tauza v. . Susquehanna Coal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Harriett MacInnes and Malcolm D. MacInnes Individually and as Husband and Wife v. Fontainebleau Hotel Corp., Defendant-RespondentCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1958
- Yeckes-Eichenbaum, Inc. v. McCarthyNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
3Cited by2 opinions
- Developers Small Business Investment Corp. v. Puerto Rico Land & Development Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1964
- Walter v. BrunswickConnecticut Appellate Court · 1965