Legal Opinion
Fidan v. Austral American Trading Corp.
New York Supreme Court
Decided September 24, 1957PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtVincent A. Lupiano, J.
The defendant appears specially, and by this motion seeks an order setting aside the service of the summons on the grounds of insufficient service of process, or in the alternative, an order dismissing the complaint because the defendant is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court and because the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action.
The plaintiff, a Turkish citizen and nonresident of New York, entered into an employment contract with a California corporation, not doing business in New York, in July, 1956. The contract was not made in New York and none of its…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Hess v. PawloskiSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Pennsylvania Fire Insurance v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Gilbert v. BurnstineNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Robert Dollar Co. v. Canadian Car & Foundry Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Pohlers v. Exeter Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1944
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Farrell v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1969
- Farrell v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1969
- Electronic Race Patrol, Inc. v. National Trailer Convoy, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1961
- Jay's Stores, Inc. v. Ann Lewis Shops, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1965
- Calzaturificio Giuseppe Garbuio S. A. S. v. Dartmouth Outdoor Sports, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1977
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.