BALBOA CAPITAL CORPORATION v. PLAZA AUTO CARE INC (2019)

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 is granted.

Following a trial on its claim for breach of a leasing agreement, the plaintiff obtained a judgment, dated October 24, 2017, from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, awarding it the sum of $51,434.90 against the defendants jointly and severally. Subsequently, in an order dated December 21, 2017, the same court awarded the plaintiff, inter alia, $18,150 in attorney's fees. The plaintiff then commenced this action by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 to enforce the judgment and the order. The defendants opposed the motion, arguing, in effect, that the California judgment was erroneously entered because the defendants had not breached the subject leasing agreement. The Supreme Court, inter alia, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. The plaintiff appeals.

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the judgment and the order, which obligated the defendants to pay the plaintiff certain amounts, and evidence that the defendants had not paid the amounts awarded therein (see CPLR 3213; Banco Popular N. Am. v. Victory Taxi Mgt., 1 N.Y.3d 381, 383, 774 N.Y.S.2d 480, 806 N.E.2d 488; Loewenberg v. Basnight, 172 A.D.3d 1356, 1357, 99 N.Y.S.3d 661; Ahmad v. Luce, 147 A.D.3d 888, 46 N.Y.S.3d 805). In opposition, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense.

The full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution (U.S. Const, art IV, § 1) requires that the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of each state be given full faith and credit in every other state. The purpose of the clause is to avoid conflicts between states in adjudicating the same matters (see Matter of Luna v. Dobson, 97 N.Y.2d 178, 182, 738 N.Y.S.2d 5, 763 N.E.2d 1146). “The doctrine establishes a rule of evidence ․ which requires recognition of the foreign judgment as proof of the prior-out-of-State litigation and gives it res judicata effect, thus avoiding relitigation of issues in one State which have already been decided in another” (Matter of Farmland Dairies v. Barber, 65 N.Y.2d 51, 55, 489 N.Y.S.2d 713, 478 N.E.2d 1314; see Matter of Luna v. Dobson, 97 N.Y.2d at 182–183, 738 N.Y.S.2d 5, 763 N.E.2d 1146). “Absent a challenge to the jurisdiction of the issuing court, New York is required to give the same preclusive effect to a judgment from another state as it would have in the issuing state” (Miller v. Miller, 152 A.D.3d 662, 664, 58 N.Y.S.3d 573 [citation omitted]; see Matter of Bennett, 84 A.D.3d 1365, 1367, 923 N.Y.S.2d 715), and it is precluded from inquiring into the merits of the judgment (see Fiore v. Oakwood Plaza Shopping Ctr., 78 N.Y.2d 572, 577, 578 N.Y.S.2d 115, 585 N.E.2d 364; Parker v. Hoefer, 2 N.Y.2d 612, 616, 162 N.Y.S.2d 13, 142 N.E.2d 194; Feng Li v. Peng, 161 A.D.3d 823, 826, 76 N.Y.S.3d 230).

Here, the defendants did not challenge the jurisdiction of the California court, but instead, sought to relitigate the merits underlying that court's determination. The Supreme Court should not have considered the defendants' attack on the merits of the California determination. Since the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiff's prima facie showing, the court should have granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint.

MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, DUFFY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.