Cantara v. Peeler

• Decision Date: 30 December 1999
• Docket Number: No. 1,1
• Citation: Cantara v. Peeler, 701 N.Y.S.2d 556, 267 A.D.2d 997 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
• Parties: 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 11,216 Richard W. CANTARA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Daniel PEELER, Richard I. Washington, Defendants-Respondents, George Bello, Paul J. James and Paul O'Rourke, Defendants-Appellants. (Appeal)
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 556

701 N.Y.S.2d 556

1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 11,216

Richard W. CANTARA, Plaintiff-Respondent, v.Daniel PEELER, Richard I. Washington, Defendants-RespondentsGeorge Bello, Paul J. James and Paul O'Rourke, Defendants-Appellants. (Appeal No. 1.)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

Dec. 30, 1999.

Leo T. Fabrizi, for defendants-appellants.

David H. Elibol, for plaintiff-respondent.

PRESENT: PINE, J.P., HAYES, WISNER, PIGOTT, JR., and SCUDDER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Supreme Court properly denied the motions of George Bello, Paul J. James and Paul O'Rourke(defendants) seeking dismissal of the complaint against them for lack of personal jurisdiction.Defendants are Canadian citizens who were involved in a multi-vehicle accident on Route 190 in Erie County.Defendants were properly served by mail pursuant to section 253 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law(see, Martin v. Mieth, 35 N.Y.2d 414, 415-416, 362 N.Y.S.2d 853, 321 N.E.2d 777;Gay v. Laurent, 179 A.D.2d 411, 577 N.Y.S.2d 853;see also, Sadek v. Stewart, 38 A.D.2d 655, 327 N.Y.S.2d 271).Jurisdiction was acquired upon the mailing of the summons and complaint by certified mail, return receipt requested (see, Albrecht v. Gordon, 182 A.D.2d 1131, 583 N.Y.S.2d 99).We reject defendants' contention that service of process was not in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Convention)(20 UST 361, TIAS 6638[1969] )."Article 10[of the Hague Convention] permits service of process by mail directly to the person abroad provided that the State of designation does not object in its ratification to such service"(Low v. Bayerische Motoren Werke, 88 A.D.2d 504, 505, 449 N.Y.S.2d 733;see, Philip v. Monarch Knitting Mach. Corp., 169 A.D.2d 603, 604, 565 N.Y.S.2d 21), and Canada has not objected "to service by postal channels"(Fed. Rules Civ. Pro.,...