TCA Global Credit Master Fund, L.P. v. Puresafe Water Systems, Inc.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (F. Dana Winslow, J.), dated May 9, 2015. The order denied the plaintiff’s unopposed motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213 to enforce a judgment of a Florida court without prejudice to renewal upon proper proof of personal jurisdiction over the defendants in the Florida court and “proof of service of the instant order upon each defendant by any method available pursuant to CPLR § 311 (except by delivery to the Secretary of State).”

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof requiring the plaintiff to furnish proof of the Florida court’s personal jurisdiction over the defendants and “proof of service of the instant order upon each defendant by any method available pursuant to CPLR § 311 (except by delivery to the Secretary of State),” and substituting therefor a provision requiring the plaintiff to furnish “proof of additional service in compliance with CPLR 3215 (g) (4)”; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“The full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution (US Const, art IV, § 1) requires a judgment of one state court to have the same credit, validity, and effect in every other court of the United States, which it had in the state in which it was pronounced” (Matter of Bennett, 84 AD3d 1365 , 1367 [2011]; see Ho v McCarthy, 90 AD3d 710 , 711 [2011]). A default judgment of a sister State can be accorded full faith and credit, and “review by the courts of this State is limited to determining whether the rendering court had jurisdiction, an inquiry which includes due process considerations” (Fiore v Oakwood Plaza Shopping Ctr., 78 NY2d 572 , 577 [1991]; see Ho v McCarthy, 90 AD3d at 711 ; Ionescu v Brancoveanu, 246 AD2d 414 , 416 [1998]). However, such an inquiry into the rendering court’s personal jurisdiction over a defendant should only be made “where the defendant raises the issue of lack of personal jurisdiction” of the rendering court (Ho v McCarthy, 90 AD3d at 711 ; see Buckeye Retirement Co., L.L.C., Ltd. v Lee, 41 AD3d 183 , 184 [2007]; Rancho Santa Fe Assn. v Dolan-King, 36 AD3d 460 , 461 [2007]; GNOC Corp. v Cappelletti, 208 AD2d 498 , 498 [1994]; see also City Fed. Sav. Bank v Reckmeyer, 178 AD2d 503 [1991]). Here, there was no jurisdictional challenge by the defendants. Accordingly, although the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff’s motion without prejudice to renewal upon proper proof, it erred in requiring the plaintiff to furnish proof of the Florida court’s personal jurisdiction over them.

Instead, the Supreme Court should have required only proof of additional service in compliance with CPLR 3215 (g) (4) (see

In light of our determination, we need not address the plaintiffs remaining contentions regarding the sufficiency of the proof in the record of the Florida court’s personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.