Susi Contracting Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Susi Contracting Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

213 A.D.2d 299, 624 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3034

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 299 (Susi Contracting Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.) 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

Susi Contracting Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 213 A.D.2d 299, 624 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3034 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered April 7, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5021 (a) (2) for an order directing entry of satisfaction of a 1972 judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant as surety on an appeal bond, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Full faith and credit requires the New York courts to give effect to the Connecticut court’s 1992 declaration that it had [300]*300jurisdiction over plaintiff in the earlier interpleader action that discharged defendant from liability on the judgment plaintiff seeks to enforce herein. This is so notwithstanding the prior pronouncement of this Court that the Connecticut interpleader court lacked such jurisdiction (172 AD2d 255, lv denied 78 NY2d 984), since a foreign court’s finding on its own jurisdiction is entitled to full faith and credit even though at odds with an earlier finding on jurisdiction by a New York court (Di Russo v Di Russo, 55 Misc 2d 839, 845-847). As the IAS Court aptly put it, "the litigation landscape has changed with the rendition of the Connecticut declaratory judgment”. It should also be noted that this Court did expressly give defendant leave to pursue "further proceedings before the Connecticut Superior Court for the purpose of determining whether that court had jurisdiction over plaintiff in a 1984 interpleader action” (180 AD2d 610). In view of the foregoing, the extent of plaintiff’s entitlement to interest is moot.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered April 7, 1994, which granted defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 5021 (a) (2) for an order directing entry of satisfaction of a 1972 judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant as surety on an appeal bond, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Full faith and credit requires the New York courts to give effect to the Connecticut court’s 1992 declaration that it had [300]*300jurisdiction over plaintiff in the earlier interpleader action that discharged defendant from liability on the judgment plaintiff seeks to enforce herein. This is so notwithstanding the prior pronouncement of this Court that the Connecticut interpleader court lacked such jurisdiction (172 AD2d 255, lv denied 78 NY2d 984), since a foreign court’s finding on its own jurisdiction is entitled to full faith and credit even though at odds with an earlier finding on jurisdiction by a New York court (Di Russo v Di Russo, 55 Misc 2d 839, 845-847). As the IAS Court aptly put it, "the litigation landscape has changed with the rendition of the Connecticut declaratory judgment”. It should also be noted that this Court did expressly give defendant leave to pursue "further proceedings before the Connecticut Superior Court for the purpose of determining whether that court had jurisdiction over plaintiff in a 1984 interpleader action” (180 AD2d 610). In view of the foregoing, the extent of plaintiff’s entitlement to interest is moot.

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 299, 624 N.Y.S.2d 153, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3034, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/susi-contracting-co-v-hartford-accident-indemnity-co-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack