Case Name: Mildred Cohen et al., Appellants, v. Morris Lansburger et al., Copartners Doing Business as Sherry Frontenac of Miami Beach, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1960-11-03
Citations: 28 Misc. 2d 549
Docket Number: 
Parties: Mildred Cohen et al., Appellants, v. Morris Lansburger et al., Copartners Doing Business as Sherry Frontenac of Miami Beach, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 549–549

Head Matter:
Mildred Cohen et al., Appellants, v. Morris Lansburger et al., Copartners Doing Business as Sherry Frontenac of Miami Beach, Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
November 3, 1960.
Kaplan & Zabronshy (Abraham Kaplan and Sidney S. Gold-stein of'counsel), for appellants. E. Edan Spencer and Nicholas Arcomano for respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
On the record presented, and in accordance with section 237-a of the Civil Practice Act, the Special Term should have directed a trial of the issue of fact whether the person with whom process had been left was a person in charge of the business in which the defendants are engaged within the State of New York. The trial before a Referee or jury shall be limited to this issue, the defendants' special appearance being based on their objection that no service was had upon a proper party under section 229-b of the Civil Practice Act (Genovese v. Roan, 1 A D 2d 935).
The order should be modified, with $10 costs and disbursements, by directing a trial of the issue of fact whether the person with whom process had been left was in charge of the business in which the defendants are engaged within the State of New York.
Concur — Hofstadter, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.
Order modified, etc.