Grunder v. Premier Indus. Corp.
| Decision Date | 23 February 1961 |
| Citation | 12 A.D.2d 998,211 N.Y.S.2d 421 |
| Parties | Donald J. GRUNDER, Appellant, v. PREMIER INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
James E. Hart, Corning, for appellant.
Cole & Walker, Bath, for respondent (Robert Cole, Bath, of counsel).
Before WILLIAMS, P. J., and BASTOW, GOLDMAN, McCLUSKY and HENRY, JJ.
This appeal presents the issue of validity of service of process on a foreign corporation. It is alleged that the corporation is doing business in the state. The record does not show that there is any office, bank account or telephone listing in the corporate name within the state. However, it does appear that the corporation has divided the state into districts and has engaged a number of sales agents to solicit orders therein for acceptance at the home office in Cleveland. The sales agent upon whom process was served also held the title of territory supervisor. About one-quarter of his time was occupied in the training of other sales agents and his call upon the other agents was preceded by the mailing of a company form which described the call as a 'manager visit'. Regular maintenance of a sales force, if of sufficient magnitude and organized, may constitute the 'doing of business' in the state. Benware v. Acme Chemical Co., 284 App.Div. 760, 135 N.Y.S.2d 207. The affidavits presented on the motion failed to sustain respondent's claim that it was not doing business in the state but raised a question of fact which may be determined on the trial or separately under Section 443(3) of the Civil Practice Act.
Order unanimously reversed without costs of this appeal to either party, motion denied without costs, and in the exercise of discretion defendant permitted to allege in its answer that it is not a person subject to the jurisdiction of the court within the meaning of § 237-a Civil Practice Act.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laufer v. Ostrow
...persons in its employ and present in New York, it solicits and services New York accounts on a continuous basis (Grunder v. Premier Ind. Corp., 12 A.D.2d 998, 211 N.Y.S.2d 421, mot. for lv. to app. den. 13 A.D.2d 717, 215 N.Y.S.2d 1023; Benware v. Acme Chem. Co., 284 App.Div. 760, 135 N.Y.S......
-
Klinghoffer v. SNC Achille Lauro
...and conducted public relations in New York and transmitted ticket requests overseas from New York); Grunder v. Premier Indus. Corp., 12 A.D.2d 998, 211 N.Y.S.2d 421, 422 (4th Dep't 1961) (regular maintenance of organized sales force may amount to doing business if sufficiently large; defend......
-
Marketing Showcase, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co.
...to process. This organized activity is something more in degree than "mere" solicitation. Accord, Grunder v. Premier Industrial Corp., 12 A.D.2d 998, 211 N.Y.S.2d 421 (4th Dep't 1961). Defendant has a permanent sales force within the state twice the size of that in Benware. Construing the p......
-
Central School Dist. No. 2, Towns of Horseheads Chemung County, N. Y. v. C. R. Evans Corp.
...maintains its own office here, staffed by its own full time employees; Bryant v. Finnish Airlines, supra; Grunder v. Premier Industrial Corp., 12 A.D.2d 998, 211 N.Y.S.2d 421 (1961), or exercises a great deal of control over its representatives, Berner v. United Airlines, supra; are to be d......