758 (1978) (original complaint, if properly served, remains in effect until amended complaint is properly served). B. Personal Jurisdiction Defendants Fashion Group and Mar-amoti argue that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. This argument is without merit. Robins alleges that Max Mara USA was “designed solely to sell [Fashion Group’s] garments and other product lines ... and Max Mara USA does not sell garments from any other manufacturer.” Robins Aff. ¶ 30. Where a foreign corporation sells goods in New York through a subsidiary, such activity “subject[s] the parent corporation to personal jurisdiction in New York.” Pfizer Inc. v. Perrigo Co., 903 F.Supp. 14, 16 (S.D.N.Y.1995). See also Canterbury Belts Ltd. v. Lane Walker Rudkin, Ltd., 869 F.2d 34, 40 (2d Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Thus this Court has personal jurisdiction
holding that a divorce granted at a foreign consulate in new york was not valid for immigration purposes because it did not comply with new york law holding that for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred in new york holding that a parent must exercise some control over the subsidiarys activities which does not require that the subsidiary be controlled to an ultimate degree by its parent  although something more than mere passive investment by the parent is required the parent must have and exercise control and direction  over the affairs of its subsidiary in order for venue to be proper holding that a foreign defendant was not present in new york for the purposes of jurisdiction simply because it engaged in financing transactions there holding that a subsidiarys activities will be attributed to the foreign parent for purposes of determining the parents amenability to personal jurisdiction in new york