Saturday, May 21, 2011

Enforcement of an Italian Judgment in New York

The following case is posted for informative purposes only.  The posting of this case does not in any way reflect Marzano & Sediva’s legal opinion or view on the underlying matter. Furthermore, this law firm, nor any attorney or lawyer affiliated with this law firm, did not represent any of the  parties in the action.

Decided on September 22, 2005

APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT:
HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, J.P.

HON. WILLIAM J. DAVIS HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD, Justices.
570147/04 x

Giuseppe Sambataro, Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Rocco Compagnone, Defendant-Respondent x

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, dated December 24, 2003 (Debra Rose Samuels, J.) which denied his motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213.
 

PER CURIAM:
Order dated December 24, 2003 (Debra Rose Samuels, J.) reversed, with $10 costs, and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint is granted.

Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment in this action to enforce a default judgment issued by an Italian court. Even assuming, without deciding, that defendant's ultimate appearance in the Italian court did not constitute a voluntary appearance pursuant to CPLR 5305 (a) (2) (cf. CIBC Mellon Trust Company v. Mora Hotel Corporation, N.V., 100 NY2d 215 [2003], cert denied 540 US 948 [2003]), no basis is shown for us to deny recognition of the judgment (CPLR 5304). The Italian court had a valid basis for exercising jurisdiction over defendant under concepts recognized in New York law (CIBC Mellon Trust v. Mora Hotel Corporation, N.V., 296 AD2d 81, 96 [2002] aff'd 100 NY2d 215 [2003] cert denied 540 US 948 [2003] citing Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons. Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR 5305 C5305:1, at 556). Defendant was served at his place of business in Vignola, Italy, at an address designated in his written correspondence with plaintiff. [*2]

Nor did defendant raise a triable issue as to whether he received notice of the proceedings in sufficient time to enable him to defend (CPLR 5304 [b][2]). A reasonable method of notification was employed and a reasonable opportunity to be heard was afforded to defendant (see, Gondre v. Silberstein, 744 F. Supp 429, 434 [EDNY, 1990]). We also note that it was not improper for plaintiff to place his supporting proof before the court by way of an attorney's affirmation annexing the foreign judgment, proof of service and other documentary evidence (Olan v. Farrell Lines Incorporated, 64 NY2d 1092, 1093 [1985]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
I concur.
I concur.
I concur.
Decision Date: September 22, 2005