
    Electronic Devices, Inc., Appellant, v. Mark Rogers Associates, Respondent.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,
    June 3, 1970.
    
      
      Fanelli, Otto, Bosco $ Pensel {Robert C. Fanelli of counsel), for appellant. Finley, Kumble, Underberg, Pershy & Both {Donald 8. Snider and Alan M. Gelb of counsel), for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Defendant, a foreign corporation not authorized to do business in this State, conducts a personnel placement agency in Connecticut. Defendant solicited plaintiff by telephone from Connecticut to New York and arranged to supply a prospective employee. Plaintiff has brought this action in the City Court of Yonkers for the return of a fee claimed to have been paid to defendant on a conditional basis. The summons and complaint were served upon the Secretary of State in Albany, New York, purportedly pursuant to section 307 of the Business Corporation Law, and copies were served by registered mail addressed to defendant in Stamford, Connecticut. In our opinion, upon the facts shown, there was no transaction of business in this State which would subject defendant to long-arm jurisdiction (Katz & Son Billiard Prods. v. Correale & Sons, 26 A D 2d 52, affd. 20 N Y 2d 903). Moreover, the long-arm limits of the City Court of Yonkers are confined to the County of Westchester or any adjoining county (UCCA, § 404, subd. [b]). Accordingly, the motion to dismiss for lack of in personam jurisdiction was properly granted.

The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs.

Gtjlotta, J.

(concurring). I concur with the majority opinion in this ease solely on the second ground, because of the quirk in subdivision (b) of section 404 of the Uniform City Court Act which, in contrast with other courts of limited jurisdiction, allows ‘ ‘ long-arm ’ ’ service to be made only in the county of the court or in an adjoining county. (Cf. UDCA, § 404, subd. [b] and CCA, § 404, subd. [b] both of which permit service in like manner as in a Supreme Court action under CPLE 302, regardless of city or State lines.)

With respect to the holding on the merits, it is my opinion that the case of a defendant soliciting business in this State, followed by furnishing services herein for which the defendant is paid a fee, is not different in principle from a case where merchandise is sent into the State by an out-of-State defendant. The latter activity is sufficient to justify invoking the long-arm jurisdiction of the court, even though there is no pattern of such activity. (See Longines-Wittnauer Watch Co. v. Barnes & Reinecke, 15 N Y 2d 443; Buckley v. Redi-Bolt, 49 Misc 2d 864.)

Hogan, P. J., and Gmckman, J., concur in Per Curiam opinion; Gtjlotta, J., concurs in memorandum.

Order affirmed, etc.  