Bieck v. Radmin

• Decision Date: 17 September 1958
• Citation: 14 Misc.2d 416,178 N.Y.S.2d 983
• Parties: Edwin L BIECK and Beatrice T. Bieck, Plaintiffs, v. Jack RADMIN, Max Singer, Norman M. Kramer, Holiday Packing Co., Inc. and Western Beef Packing Corporation, Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 983

178 N.Y.S.2d 983

14 Misc.2d 416

Edwin L BIECK and Beatrice T. Bieck, Plaintiffs, v. Jack RADMIN, Max Singer, Norman M. Kramer, Holiday Packing Co., Inc. and Western Beef Packing Corporation, Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Part III.

Sept. 17, 1958.

Bernard Trencher, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Raphael, Searles, Levin & Vischi, New York City, for defendant Singer.

Albert I. Schmalholz, New York City, for defendant Kramer.

Lawrence I. Sanders, Brooklyn, for defendant Radmin.

William Levin, Albert I. Schmalholz, New York City, Lawrence I. Sanders, Brooklyn, of counsel, for all individual defendants.

Arnold Davis, New York City, for defendant Holiday Packing.

HENRY EPSTEIN, Justice.

This is an action upon a Florida judgment. The defendant, Western Beef Packing Corporation, is a Florida corporation. The remaining defendants are residents of this state. They have moved, by separate motions, for dismissal of the complaint pursuant to rule 106, subd. 4.

A duly authenticated record of the judgment of a sister state is entitled to the enforcement it would receive in the courts of the state which rendered it (Berkman v. Ann Lewis Shops, Inc., 2 Cir., 246 F.2d 44). In an action upon that judgment, the jurisdiction of the court which rendered it is open to judicial inquiry. This may not be done, however, upon the basis of a complaint which attaches the record satisfactorily establishing jurisdiction and which alleges due commencement of the foreign suit and the due entry of judgment against the defendant (Rules of Civil Practice, rule 95). The Florida statute, pursuant to which service was effected and jurisdiction rested (Florida Statutes 1955, §§ 47.16 and 47.30, F.S.A.) is akin to section 229-b of the Civil Practice Act. Defendants urge that the statute is unconstitutional and exceeds the permissible limits of jurisdiction by substituted service of summons upon nonresidents (Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565). However, as stated in McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 U.S. 220, 78 S.Ct. 199, 201, 2 L.Ed.2d 223:

'A trend is clearly discernible toward expanding the permissible scope of state jurisdiction over foreign corporations and over nonresidents. In part this is attributable to the fundamental transformation of our national economy over the years.'

See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95. The Florida statute has been declared constitutional...