CONSTANDINOU v. CONSTANDINOU (1999)

 Supreme Court properly granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint based upon the default judgment that was entered against defendant in Canada (see, CPLR 5303).   We reject defendant's contention that “the [money] judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law” (CPLR 5304[a][1];  see, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Saxony Carpet Co., 899 F.Supp. 1248, 1252 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), affd. 104 F.3d 352 (2nd Cir.1996);  Clarkson Co. v. Shaheen, 544 F.2d 624, 629-630 (2nd Cir.1976)).   Defendant voluntarily appeared in the proceedings in Canada (see, CPLR 5305[a][2] ), and thus the court had personal jurisdiction over her (see, CPLR 5304[a][2] ).   Defendant's averments of fraud (see, CPLR 5304[b][3] ) are “nothing more than an attempt to reopen the merits of the [Canadian] action” (Thorpe v. McCaffrey, 157 A.D.2d 879, 881-882, 549 N.Y.S.2d 881).   Defendant was notified of the trial date and admits that she “decided to default”.  “Having defaulted, * * * defendant may not now challenge the merits of plaintiff['s] claims collaterally” (Porisini v. Petricca, 90 A.D.2d 949, 456 N.Y.S.2d 888).

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: