DocketNumber: No. CV99 06 73 41S
Citation Numbers: 2001 Conn. Super. Ct. 6317
Judges: NADEAU, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 5/18/2001
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
Generally, a judgment creditor may file a foreign judgment with the Connecticut courts and the foreign judgment is treated in the same manner as a judgment of a court of this state. General Statutes §
"Any judgment rendered . . . upon a default . . . may be set aside . . . upon the written motion of any party or person prejudiced thereby, showing reasonable cause, or that a good cause of action or defense in whole or part existed at the time of such judgment . . . and that the defendant was prevented by mistake, accident or other reasonable cause from prosecuting or appearing to make the same." Practice Book §
Plaintiff Moneypaper objects to the motion to reopen judgment on the ground that defendant has no defense to the default judgment entered against it in the New York court. Defendant would have a valid defense, and thus meet the first prong of the above test, if it could show that the New York court lacked personal jurisdiction. "A party can therefore defend against the 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." PackerPlastics, Inc. v. Laundon,
But, in its latest brief, defendant rather circumvented the issue of whether the New York court had jurisdiction over it, asserting only that it may defend the New York judgment on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiff, in its latest brief, included a copy of the acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint signed by James Repetsky, officer of the defendant company.2 The acknowledgment appears to comply with N.Y. CPLR § 312-a which permits personal service by mail.3 Under New York law, therefore, it appears that the New York court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant if the defendant's officer signs and returns the acknowledgment. Jefferson Heights Quarry v. Fort PikeAssociates,
Defendant has failed to show this court, although specifically requested to do so, the existence of a valid defense regarding the New York action. For this reason, this court declines to reverse its earlier decision denying the defendant's motion to reopen.
_____________________ NADEAU, JUDGE