Dolec Consultants, Inc. v. Lancer Litho Packaging Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dolec Consultants, Inc. v. Lancer Litho Packaging Corp.

245 A.D.2d 415, 666 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13069

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 15, 1997·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

—In an action to recover the principal sum of $15,524 based upon a Canadian judgment dated July 7, 1995, entered upon the defendant’s default in answering, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), entered November 20, 1996, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $15,524.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff seeks to recover money owed to it by the defendant pursuant to a judgment of the Superior Court, Province of Quebec, Canada, entered upon the defendant’s default in answering. The defendant asserts that Quebec could not exercise personal jurisdiction over him and that, accordingly, the courts of this State cannot enforce the Quebec judgment. We disagree.

Initially, the defendant’s conclusory denial of receipt of the summons and complaint in the Quebec action was insufficient to raise an issue of fact warranting a hearing to determine the validity of service of process (see, Sando Realty Corp. v Aris, 209 AD2d 682). Moreover, the Quebec court had a valid basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendant as the [416] defendant purposefully transacted business in Quebec (see, CPLR 5305 [b]; 302 [a] [1]). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the Quebec court’s exercise of jurisdiction does not violate principles of due process (see, Burger King Corp. v Rudzewicz, 471 US 462, 471-472; see also, Cucullu v Lowe, 241 AD2d 474). Rosenblatt, J. P., Altman, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover the principal sum of $15,524 based upon a Canadian judgment dated July 7, 1995, entered upon the defendant’s default in answering, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), entered November 20, 1996, which is in favor of the plaintiff and against it in the principal sum of $15,524.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff seeks to recover money owed to it by the defendant pursuant to a judgment of the Superior Court, Province of Quebec, Canada, entered upon the defendant’s default in answering. The defendant asserts that Quebec could not exercise personal jurisdiction over him and that, accordingly, the courts of this State cannot enforce the Quebec judgment. We disagree.

Initially, the defendant’s conclusory denial of receipt of the summons and complaint in the Quebec action was insufficient to raise an issue of fact warranting a hearing to determine the validity of service of process (see, Sando Realty Corp. v Aris, 209 AD2d 682). Moreover, the Quebec court had a valid basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendant as the [416] defendant purposefully transacted business in Quebec (see, CPLR 5305 [b]; 302 [a] [1]). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the Quebec court’s exercise of jurisdiction does not violate principles of due process (see, Burger King Corp. v Rudzewicz, 471 US 462, 471-472; see also, Cucullu v Lowe, 241 AD2d 474). Rosenblatt, J. P., Altman, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Dolec Consultants, Inc. v. Lancer Litho Packaging Corp., 245 A.D.2d 415, 666 N.Y.S.2d 458, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

245 A.D.2d 415 (Dolec Consultants, Inc. v. Lancer Litho Packaging Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related