Summary
holding that jurisdiction over non-resident general partner proper under CPLR § 302
Summary of this case from Steel v. Watch Hill Management Corp.Opinion
July 9, 1968
Orders entered October 27, 1966 and April 11, 1967 and judgment entered thereon on April 19, 1967, which granted a motion to quash service of a supplemental summons on defendant Triggs and dismissed the cross claims of defendant Rayner-Smith and of the intervening defendants against Triggs, unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellants, the judgment vacated and the motions denied. The partnership relationship was sufficient to invoke the application of CPLR 302 (subd. [a]) and to sustain jurisdiction ( Schneider v. J C Carpet Co., 23 A.D.2d 103; Banco Espanol de Credito v. Du Pont, 24 A.D.2d 445; CPLR 302 (subd. [a]); see also, 1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ. Prac., par. 301.15; Partnership Law, § 20, § 4, subd. 3). The appeal, insofar as it seeks to dismiss the action on the ground that Triggs is a necessary party, dismissed as academic.
Concur — Stevens, J.P., Eager, Capozzoli, McGivern and McNally, JJ. [ 51 Misc.2d 1089.]