Sung Hwan Co., Ltd. v. Rite Aid Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sung Hwan Co., Ltd. v. Rite Aid Corp.

2017 NY Slip Op 4202, 150 A.D.3d 594, 52 N.Y.S.3d 627

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 25, 2017

Docket3529 112444/01

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4202 (Sung Hwan Co., Ltd. v. Rite Aid Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sung Hwan Co., Ltd. v. Rite Aid Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 4202, 150 A.D.3d 594, 52 N.Y.S.3d 627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered March 2, 2015, after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action pursuant to CPLR article 53 to enforce a foreign money judgment, plaintiff had the burden of establishing jurisdiction (Venegas v Capric Clinic, 147 AD3d 457 [1st Dept 2017]; Derso v Volkswagen of Am., 159 AD2d 937, 938 [4th Dept 1990]). On the record before us, we cannot conclude that Supreme Court erred in determining that plaintiff failed to do so. Specifically at issue was whether defendant operated *595 or controlled an ice cream factory owned by a subsidiary that allegedly supplied listeria-tainted ice cream to plaintiff in South Korea. The record does not support a conclusion that Supreme Court erred in determining that defendant did not operate or control the ice cream factory directly or through a subsidiary acting as a “department” of defendant (see Volkswagenwerk AG. v Beech Aircraft Corp., 751 F2d 117, 120 [2d Cir 1984]). Moreover, neither could apparent authority give rise to jurisdiction over defendant here.

Plaintiff relies upon cases from across the country involving defendant. We have reviewed these cases and find them inap-posite. We have also considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Sweeny J.P., Renwick, Andrias and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered March 2, 2015, after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action pursuant to CPLR article 53 to enforce a foreign money judgment, plaintiff had the burden of establishing jurisdiction (Venegas v Capric Clinic, 147 AD3d 457 [1st Dept 2017]; Derso v Volkswagen of Am., 159 AD2d 937, 938 [4th Dept 1990]). On the record before us, we cannot conclude that Supreme Court erred in determining that plaintiff failed to do so. Specifically at issue was whether defendant operated *595 or controlled an ice cream factory owned by a subsidiary that allegedly supplied listeria-tainted ice cream to plaintiff in South Korea. The record does not support a conclusion that Supreme Court erred in determining that defendant did not operate or control the ice cream factory directly or through a subsidiary acting as a “department” of defendant (see Volkswagenwerk AG. v Beech Aircraft Corp., 751 F2d 117, 120 [2d Cir 1984]). Moreover, neither could apparent authority give rise to jurisdiction over defendant here.

Plaintiff relies upon cases from across the country involving defendant. We have reviewed these cases and find them inap-posite. We have also considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Sweeny J.P., Renwick, Andrias and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 4202, 150 A.D.3d 594, 52 N.Y.S.3d 627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sung-hwan-co-ltd-v-rite-aid-corp-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack