Opinion
2011-09-30
STEVEN M. GARBER & ASSOCIATES, A Professional Corporation, Plaintiff–Respondent,v.Kim John ZUBER, Defendant–Appellant, et al., Defendant.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (William P. Polito, J.), entered October 21, 2010. The order granted the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.Harter Secrest & Emery LLP, Rochester (Thomas G. Smith of Counsel), for defendant-appellant.Peter M. Agulnick, P.C., Great Neck (Peter M. Agulnick of Counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.MEMORANDUM:
By motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, plaintiff commenced this action to enforce a judgment entered in California upon the default of Kim John Zuber (defendant). Contrary to defendant's contention, Supreme Court properly granted the motion. “Absent a jurisdictional challenge, a final judgment entered upon the defendant's default in appearing in an action is ... entitled to be given full faith and credit in the courts of this State” ( GNOC Corp. v. Cappelletti, 208 A.D.2d 498, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1018; see Fiore v. Oakwood Plaza Shopping Ctr., 78 N.Y.2d 572, 577, 578 N.Y.S.2d 115, 585 N.E.2d 364, rearg. denied 79 N.Y.2d 916, 581 N.Y.S.2d 668, 590 N.E.2d 253, cert. denied 506 U.S. 823, 113 S.Ct. 75, 121 L.Ed.2d 40). Here, the record establishes that the California court had jurisdiction over defendant and that defendant admits that process was properly served upon him in New York ( cf. Vertex Std. USA, Inc. v. Reichert, 16 A.D.3d 1163, 791 N.Y.S.2d 892). We agree with the court that plaintiff established that defendant had “certain minimum contacts with [California] so that the maintenance of the suit [there] would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice ... and [that defendant] has purposefully [availed himself] of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, [i.e., California,] thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws” ( Money–Line, Inc. v. Cunningham, 80 A.D.2d 60, 62, 437 N.Y.S.2d 816; see Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283, reh. denied 358 U.S. 858, 79 S.Ct. 10, 3 L.Ed.2d 92; International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, and MARTOCHE, JJ., concur.