Legal Opinion
Muraco v. Ferentino
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 18, 1964PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRichard Aronson, J.
The defendant, Edwards Engineering Corporation, a Ndw Jersey corporation (hereinafter referred to as “ Edwards”), has moved pursuant to rule 3211 (subd. *105[a], par. [8]) of the Civil Practice Law and Bules to set aside service upon it of the summons and complaint in this action upon the grounds that the court has no jurisdiction of the person of the defendant. Service was effected upon it in the State of New Jersey on September 27,1963, by service of the papers upon its secretary.
The complaint alleges inter alla that the defendant Edwards is the manufacturer of certain heating equipment, the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Shielcrawt v. MoffettNew York Court of Appeals · 1945
- Holzer v. . Dodge BrothersNew York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Allen C. Kaye-Martin and Harry M. Hansen v. Pierce P. BrooksCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1959
- Hellriegel Ex Rel. Hellriegel v. Sears Roebuck & Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1957
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Singer v. WalkerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1964
- O'Connor v. WellsNew York Supreme Court · 1964
- State Division of Human Rights v. New York State Department of Correctional ServicesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1978
- Agrashell, Inc. v. Bernard Sirotta CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1964
- Schroeder v. LoomisNew York Supreme Court · 1965
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.