Sung Hwan Co. v. Rite Aid Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sung Hwan Co. v. Rite Aid Corp.

12 A.D.3d 325, 786 N.Y.S.2d 18, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14400

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

DecidedNovember 30, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 325 (Sung Hwan Co. 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. v. Rite Aid Corp., 12 A.D.3d 325, 786 N.Y.S.2d 18, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered June 12, 2003, which dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court misinterpreted our decision in CIBC Mellon Trust Co. v Mora Hotel Corp. (296 AD2d 81 [2002], affd 100 NY2d 215 [2003], cert denied 540 US 948 [2003]), in concluding that it was restricted to a review of the material before the Korean court in determining whether New York law would permit the exercise of jurisdiction over defendant, particularly since plaintiff had no opportunity to lay bare its proof as to jurisdiction because of defendant’s default in the underlying [326]*326Korean action. Evidence outside the foreign court’s file could be examined in order to determine whether that court had a basis for personal jurisdiction over defendant (see Porisini v Petricca, 90 AD2d 949 [1982]).

We affirm nonetheless, because the evidentiary material before the IAS court, including the Korean court file and a 1995 ice cream sales agreement between defendant’s subsidiary and a Korean distributor, conclusively refuted any allegation that the Seoul District Court had a cognizable basis for exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendant. Dismissal of the complaint was warranted under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and 5304 (a) (2). Concur—Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Lerner, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered June 12, 2003, which dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court misinterpreted our decision in CIBC Mellon Trust Co. v Mora Hotel Corp. (296 AD2d 81 [2002], affd 100 NY2d 215 [2003], cert denied 540 US 948 [2003]), in concluding that it was restricted to a review of the material before the Korean court in determining whether New York law would permit the exercise of jurisdiction over defendant, particularly since plaintiff had no opportunity to lay bare its proof as to jurisdiction because of defendant’s default in the underlying [326]*326Korean action. Evidence outside the foreign court’s file could be examined in order to determine whether that court had a basis for personal jurisdiction over defendant (see Porisini v Petricca, 90 AD2d 949 [1982]).

We affirm nonetheless, because the evidentiary material before the IAS court, including the Korean court file and a 1995 ice cream sales agreement between defendant’s subsidiary and a Korean distributor, conclusively refuted any allegation that the Seoul District Court had a cognizable basis for exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendant. Dismissal of the complaint was warranted under CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and 5304 (a) (2). Concur—Tom, J.P., Sullivan, Lerner, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 325, 786 N.Y.S.2d 18, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sung-hwan-co-v-rite-aid-corp-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack