[*1]
University of San Diego v Miller
2005 NY Slip Op 52229(U) [10 Misc 3d 141(A)]
Decided on June 28, 2005
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on June 28, 2005
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: HON. WILLIAM J. DAVIS, J.P. HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB HON. MARTIN SCHOENFELD JJ
#. x

UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO, 570251/04 Plaintiff-Respondent, 04-199

against

JUSTIN MILLER, Defendant-Appellant. - x


Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court, New York County, entered January 5, 2004 (Delores J. Thomas, J.) which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the principal amount of $6,938.45.


PER CURIAM:

Order entered January 5, 2004 (Delores J. Thomas, J.) affirmed, with $10 costs.

Civil Court properly determined that the California judgment was entitled to full faith and credit and was not subject to collateral attack (The Cadle Co. v. Tri-Angle Associates, AD3d , 2005 NY Slip Op 03178). Defendant's claim that the California court did not have jurisdiction over him is unavailing since defendant made a special appearance in the California action to contest personal jurisdiction and his motion to quash service was denied. "As to judgments of sister states, the rule is well settled: a defendant who has made a special appearance to challenge the jurisdiction of the sister state's courts, and whose position has been considered and rejected by that court, may not be heard to raise the jurisdictional challenge anew when the plaintiff seeks to enforce the judgment in a second state" (CIBC Mellon Trust Company v. Mora Hotel Corporation N.V., 296 AD2d 81, 91-92 [2002]).

We also find meritless defendant's contention that, contrary to the requirements of CPLR §5401, the California judgment was obtained by a default in appearance. Defendant [*2]answered the complaint in the California action after his jurisdictional challenge was rejected, and a judgment was entered against him due to his subsequent failure to appear for conference. Once jurisdiction was conferred over defendant in California, it was not divested by his failure to appear in the later stages of the proceeding (Shine, Julianelle, Karp, Bozelko & Karazin, P.C. v. Rubens, 192 AD2d 345 [1993]).

This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Decision Date: June 28, 2005