DocketNumber: No. 335978
Citation Numbers: 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 6620-GG
Judges: GRAY, J.
Filed Date: 7/22/1993
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The defendant defaulted and the plaintiff, pursuant to terms of the agreement, brought an action against the defendant in the state of New York where a judgment was entered against the defendant in the sum of $5,979.74.
This action was brought by the plaintiff based on the judgment obtained in the Supreme Court of the County of and State of New York. The defendant moved to dismiss this action based upon a claim of lack of jurisdiction of the New York court because of improper service of process upon the defendant
A challenge to the court's jurisdiction is properly raised by the filing of a motion to dismiss. Park City Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals and Health Care,
The judgment of the court in New York was rendered in part upon the provisions of Paragraph 19 of the lease which provides, in part:
. . . Lessor and lessee . . . hereby jointly and severally designate and appoint Stuart B. Glover, Esquire, New York, New York and C.A. Credit Corp., New York, New York or either of them, as each of such party's true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent for each of such party and in each such party's name, place and stead to accept service of process within the State of New York . . .
Paragraph 19 further provides that ". . . if it should appear that any provision hereof is in conflict with any statute or rule of law of any jurisdiction wherein it may be sought to be enforced then such provision shall be deemed null and void to the extent that it may conflict therewith. . ." .
The defendant contends that this portion of Paragraph 19 conflicts with the provisions of Section
The plaintiff properly served the C-A Credit Corp., which then sent copies of the complaint and accompanying documents by certified mail to the defendant along with a letter advising the defendant that such papers had been served upon C-A Credit Corp. as agent for the defendant. Nor is there any dispute as to the affidavit in support of compliance with the contractual provisions. The defendant argues that the Connecticut courts should not enforce the New York judgment because the court in that state lacked in personam jurisdiction when it rendered its judgment.
Section
A party may defend against enforcement of a foreign judgment on the ground that the court that rendered the judgment lacked personal jurisdiction, unless the jurisdictional issue was fully litigated before the rendering court or the defending party waived the right to litigate the issue. Id. However, the United States Supreme Court has consistently held that the judgment of another state must be presumed valid and the burden of proving a lack of jurisdiction "rests heavily upon the assailant." Id., at 57, quoting Williams v. North Carolina,
Contracts containing clauses in which the contracting parties designate and appoint agents for receipt of process have long been held valid, provided the agent gives prompt and effective notice to the principal. National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent,
Section
Filing of foreign judgment; certification; effect; notice. (a) A judgment creditor shall file, with a certified copy of a foreign judgment, in the court in which enforcement of such judgment is sought, a certification that the judgment was not obtained by default in appearance or by confession of judgment . . .
(b) Such foreign judgment shall be treated in the same manner as a judgment of this state. . . . and may be enforced or satisfied CT Page 6623 in like manner.
Section
Other rights of action preserved. The right of a judgment creditor to proceed by an action on the judgment or a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint instead of proceeding under sections
52-604 to52-609 , inclusive, remains unimpaired.
These statutory provisions allow different remedies for a judgment creditor. Seaboard Surety Co. v. Waterbury,
In this case, there is no conflict of law in light of the undisputed facts and applicable law. The court in New York had jurisdiction by consent of the parties and the plaintiff's action to recover a debt is enforceable under the statutory scheme. The defendant's argument that the contractual appointment of an agent for the service of process contravenes the provisions of
There is no claim by the defendant as to the validity of the agreement. He is bound by the contractual provisions bargained for, including the stipulation as to jurisdiction over the person. Bankgenossenschaft v. Perren,
The motion is denied.
BY THE COURT
Leander C. Gray, Judge CT Page 6624