Mimshell Fabrics, LTD., 491 F.2d 21, 23 (2d Cir. 1974); cf. In re Enark Industries, Inc., 86 Misc.2d 985, 383 N.Y.S.2d 796 (App.Term 1976) (per curiam). As explained by Mimshell, the test is composed of two parts: 1) was the debtor actually doing business at the location in question as evidenced by its frequent use by the debtor in the production of revenue? 491 F.2d at 23; In re Airequipt, Inc., 1 B.C.D. 1494 (S.D.N.Y.1975); see P.S. Products Corp. v. Equilease Corporation, 435 F.2d 781, 783 & n.3 (2d Cir. 1970); see, e.g., In re John Adams Henry, Inc., 5 U.C.C. 795, 799-801 (B.C.S.D.N.Y.1968); In re Golden Kernel, Inc., 5 U.C.C. 43 (B.C.E.D.Pa.1968); cf. In re McQuaide, 5 U.C.C. 802, 807 (B.C.D.Vt.1968) (bookkeeping isn’t doing business); In re Falkof, 2 U.C.C. 731 (B.C.D.Mass.1963) (<HOLDING>); and 2) was such use notorious, i.e., was
holding that any acts in which employee engaged with intent to woo plaintiffs wife away from him during business meetings and trips simply had no connection to business of employer holding that there is no unitary business in part because there is no flow of international business holding preparatory meetings isnt doing business holding that a party has mental capacity if she appreciated the effect of what she was doing and understood the nature and consequences of her acts and the business she was transacting recognizing that pursuant to the business judgment rule the decisions of business professionals on the board of directors should be presumed valid