MEMORANDUM.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. The dispositive issue presented on this appeal is whether respondent's activities within New York State, which are concisely delineated in the opinion by then Justice A. FRANKLIN MAHONEY at the Appellate Division ( 56 A.D.2d 475), go beyond the bounds of what may reasonably be deemed "mere" solicitation. We agree with the Appellate Division that they do not. Since respondent has not engaged in any additional activities within the State, it is exempt from the tax sought to be imposed by appellant (see U.S. Code, tit 15, § 381, subd [a]; cf. United States Tobacco Co. v Commonwealth, 386 A.2d 471 [Pa]).
Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed.