From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Deutsch v. Hoge Brush Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 7, 1943
266 App. Div. 116 (N.Y. App. Div. 1943)

Opinion

May 7, 1943.

Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County, LEVY, J.

Meyer Kraushaar of counsel ( Benjamin Stenzler, attorney), for appellant, appearing specially.

Irving H. Saypol of counsel ( Leo Kotler with him on the brief; James A. Dunne, Jr., attorney), for respondent.


The individual appellants Herman Hoge, Arthur Hoge, Gus Hoge, Joel Hoge and Oliver Hoge, all sued herein as "Hoge Brush Company, individually and d/b [doing business] as a subsidiary of the Hoge Lumber Company, a foreign corporation," were not made parties defendant to this action and were not at any time served with process.

The conduct of the Pennsylvania attorney in obtaining a copy of the complaint and an extension of time to answer was not a general appearance nor did it vest the court with jurisdiction of the person of these nonresident appellants. Moreover, there is no showing that the appearance of the attorney was ever authorized by any one of the appellants. ( Amusement Securities Corp. v. Academy Pict. Dist. Corp., 251 App. Div. 227, 229.)

The orders should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the complaint dismissed.

MARTIN, P.J., TOWNLEY, GLENNON, COHN and CALLAHAN, JJ., concur.

Orders, so far as appealed from, unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the complaint dismissed.


Summaries of

Deutsch v. Hoge Brush Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 7, 1943
266 App. Div. 116 (N.Y. App. Div. 1943)
Case details for

Deutsch v. Hoge Brush Co.

Case Details

Full title:EMANUEL DEUTSCH, Doing Business under the Name of Unity Sanitary Supply…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 7, 1943

Citations

266 App. Div. 116 (N.Y. App. Div. 1943)
41 N.Y.S.2d 277

Citing Cases

Maushart v. Kelly

In any event, where an extension of time to answer is merely incidental to, or part of, a special appearance…

MacPherson v. MacPherson

( Leviton v. Leviton, 6 N.Y.S.2d 535, mod. and affd. 254 App. Div. 670; Matter of Fleischer, 192 Misc. 777;…