From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pohlers v. Exeter Manufacturing Co.

City Court of New York, Special Term, New York County
Apr 19, 1943
180 Misc. 273 (N.Y. Misc. 1943)

Opinion

April 19, 1943.

Walter H. Bond for defendant.

Reuben Golin for plaintiff.


Motion to confirm the report of the Official Referee is granted. However, irrespective of whether or not the party served was in fact a "managing agent," the failure to fully comply with subdivision 3 of section 229 of the Civil Practice Act is fatal to the service. The affidavit is silent as to any attempt to effect service under subdivision 2 of section 229 of the Civil Practice Act. Proof that service could not be made under subdivision 1 is not of itself sufficient to dispense with the method set forth in subdivision 2. The motion to vacate and set aside the service of the summons is granted. ( McKeon v. McGowan Sons, 229 A.D. 568.)


Summaries of

Pohlers v. Exeter Manufacturing Co.

City Court of New York, Special Term, New York County
Apr 19, 1943
180 Misc. 273 (N.Y. Misc. 1943)
Case details for

Pohlers v. Exeter Manufacturing Co.

Case Details

Full title:EMIL R. POHLERS, Plaintiff, v. EXETER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant

Court:City Court of New York, Special Term, New York County

Date published: Apr 19, 1943

Citations

180 Misc. 273 (N.Y. Misc. 1943)
41 N.Y.S.2d 577

Citing Cases

De Santa v. Nehi Corp.

Section 229, subdivision 3. There are some New York State cases which indicate that in the absence of such…