Legal Opinion
Samuel Hoffman, Inc. v. Mode Shoppe, Inc.
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided December 30, 1930PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Per curiam
The plaintiff’s affidavit that it had formerly made space available for the use of defendant’s buyers is insufficient to show that at the time of the service of the summons the defendant had any established office in this State. Furthermore, even if it be assumed that the defendant at the time of the service used space in the office of a resident buyer, this does not appear to have been done except on occasions. The decision in Hartstein v. Seidenbach’s, Inc. (129 Misc. 687) was based upon the existence of an established place of business in this jurisdiction coupled with announcements to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Robert Dollar Co. v. Canadian Car & Foundry Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Fleischmann Construction Co. v. Blauner'sAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
- Hartstein v. Seidenbach's, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1927
3Cited by3 opinions
- Co-Ed Dresses, Inc. v. City of Paris Drygoods Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1938
- Affiliated Enterprises, Inc. v. Colonial Theatre, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1937
- Grossman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1988