OPINION OF THE COURT

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 AD2d 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 US Code, tit 15, § 381, subd [a]; cf. United States Tobacco Co. v Commonwealth, 386 A2d 471 [Pa]).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.