The opinion of the court was delivered by: NOONAN
A third party defendant, Maher Stevedoring Corporation, moves to quash the return of service and to vacate the third-party summons and complaint in this action on the ground that it is not subject to service of process within the State of New York.
The moving party is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey. Its principal office is located in Port Newark, New Jersey. It has no office of its own for the conduct of its business in New York. Nevertheless, certain facts that must be considered include the following:
1. Maher Stevedoring Corporation, the New Jersey corporation, is wholly owned by Michael E. Maher who is also the sole owner of a New York corporation which formerly had the identical name as the New Jersey corporation but whose name was changed to Maher Stevedoring Co., Inc., two months after service in this action.
2. It was the intention of Mr. Maher, sole owner of both corporations that the New York corporation was to 'sub-contract' work to be done in New Jersey to the New Jersey corporation.
3. The New Jersey corporation paid the New York corporation $ 500 anticipatorily 'in connection with solicitation of business in New York.'
4. The contract covering the work involved in this suit was signed by the New Jersey corporation at the New York Port of Embarkation, 58th Street and First Avenue, Brooklyn, New York.
5. The New York corporation maintained an office and telephone listing in 17 Battery Place, New York City, at which place the name Maher Stevedoring Corporation was listed on the building directory and on the door of the office. An arrangement was made in the New York office that important telephone messages should be relayed to Mr. Maher in New Jersey.
6. The New Jersey corporation has worked for the Marine Transport Lines, Funch Edye & Co., the Port of New York Authority, the United States Lines, Lloyd Brasiliero, Luchenbach Steamship Co., Boise-Griffin Steamship Co., the West Coast Line and others, each of which have no principal place for business in New Jersey, but instead have their principal places of business in New York.
7. The insurance broker for the New Jersey corporation was located in New York City.
8. The New Jersey corporation is a member of the New York Shipping Association.
9. In connection with his frequent trips to New York in 1953 and 1954, Mr. Maher stated in his deposition, 'I would say that at times it was (on) the business of the New Jersey corporation, and at times it was (on) the business of the New York corporation, depending upon what the occasion for coming here happened to be.' And in connection with his trips to New York in 1952, he stated, 'In 1952, most of my attendance in New York, in the latter part, I change that, the early part of 1952, would have been for the Jersey corporation. In connection with the contract with the U. S. Government which called for my attendance at the New York Port of Embarkation on occasion to discuss matters with the contracting officer whose office was located there, and matters in the New York Shipping Association, whose offices are there, and in matters concerning union relationships in New Jersey are handled through the New York Shipping Association in New York.'
10. In connection with its business expenses including entertainment, Mr. Maher stated that some of the money was spent in New York. Also, Mr. Maher stated that the New Jersey corporation pays for Mr. Maher's membership in a club in New York.
From this and other facts, we must determine whether the New Jersey corporation is doing business in New York and whether the New Jersey corporation was properly served?
In the International Shoe case, International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 1945, 326 U.S. 310, 316 et seq., 66 S. Ct. 154, 158, 90 L. Ed. 95, Mr. Chief Justice Stone, delivering the opinion ...