STEVEN GARBER ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION PLAINTIFF RESPONDENT v. KIM JOHN ZUBER DEFENDANT APPELLANT ET AL DEFENDANT

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

STEVEN M. GARBER & ASSOCIATES, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF–RESPONDENT, v. KIM JOHN ZUBER, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT, ET AL., DEFENDANT.

CA 10–02518

Decided: September 30, 2011

PRESENT:  SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 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 AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

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;  see Fiore v Oakwood Plaza Shopping Ctr., 78 N.Y.2d 572, 577, rearg. denied 79 N.Y.2d 916, cert. denied 506 U.S. 823).   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 AD3d 1163).   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;  see Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, reh denied 358 U.S. 858;  International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316).

Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court