FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 1

86 Misc.2d 1010, 383 N.Y.S.2d 833

(Cite as: 86 Misc.2d 1010, 383 N.Y.S.2d 833)

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 2

86 Misc.2d 1010, 383 N.Y.S.2d 833

(Cite as: 86 Misc.2d 1010, 383 N.Y.S.2d 833)

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, New York,

First Department.
Wilhelmine SIEDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Dr. Julius H. JACOBSON, Defendant-Respondent.

April 28, 1976.

Austrian antique dealer brought suit to enforce judgment obtained upon defendant's default after being served in
New York with process issued out of Austrian court. The Civil Court of the City of New York, Walter M.
Schackman, J., denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint and granted defendant's cross
motion for summary judgment dismissing the action and the plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
held that defendant's solitary act in purchasing antique from plaintiff in Vienna could not serve as a jurisdictional
predicate sufficient to grant conclusive effect to the default judgment sued upon.

Affirmed.

West Headnotes

[1] Judgment 228 830.1

228 Judgment
228XVII Foreign Judgments
228k830 Judgments of Courts of Foreign Countries
228k830.1 k. In General. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 228k830)

Statute providing for suit to enforce foreign judgment was not intended to adopt the broad definition of
transacting any business applicable under New York's long-arm statute as the criterion for extending recognition
to foreign country judgments themselves bottomed upon correspondingly liberal bases of jurisdiction. CPLR 302,
5301 et seq.

[2] Judgment 228 830.1

228 Judgment
228XVII Foreign Judgments
228k830 Judgments of Courts of Foreign Countries
228k830.1 k. In General. Most Cited Cases
(Formerly 228k830)

Defendant's purchase of an antique from plaintiff dealer in Vienna could not serve as a jurisdictional predicate
sufficient to grant conclusive effect to default judgment obtained by plaintiff after defendant was served in New
York with process issued out of Austrian court based upon Austrian long-arm statute. CPLR 302, 5301 et seq.,
5304(a), par. 5, 5305(a), par. 5.

*1010 **833 Wachtell, Manheim & Grouf, New York City (Stephen P. H. Rachlis, New York City, of counsel), for
appellant.

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.

 FOR EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY Page 3

86 Misc.2d 1010, 383 N.Y.S.2d 833

(Cite as: 86 Misc.2d 1010, 383 N.Y.S.2d 833)

Reavis & McGrath, New York City (Leonard M. Leiman, Stephen R. Steinberg and Jane Fankhanel, New York City,
of counsel), for respondent.

Before DUDLEY, J.P., and TIERNEY and RICCOBONO, JJ.

**834 PER CURIAM:

While on a week's holicay in Vienna, defendant and his companion purchased an antique porcelain figure from
plaintiff dealer, but subsequently refused to honor payment on the ground that plaintiff had misrepresented the
article's age and value. Two years later, defendant was served in New York with process (in German) issued out of
the Austrian Superior Court, based upon that nation's counterpart to New York's long-arm statute (CPLR 302).
Upon defendant's default, plaintiff instituted this action pursuant to Article 53 of the CPLR to enforce the foreign
judgment.

[1][2] We agree with Special Term's conclusion that the judgment should not be enforceable in New York for
lack of jurisdiction over the defendant. Analysis of the legislative history of *1011 Article 53 makes clear that it was
not within the intendment of that statute to adopt the broad definition of transacting any business' applicable under
CPLR section 302 as the criterion for extending recognition to foreign country judgments themselves bottomed upon
correspondingly liberal bases of jurisdiction (CPLR 5305(a) 5; 13 N.Y. Judicial Conference Report, p. 223 (1968); 6
Weinstein, Korn & Miller, s 5305.02). While we are cognizant of the desirability of affording recognition to foreign
country judgments so that judgments obtained in our own courts will receive reciprocally favorable treatment
abroad, the nature of defendant's solitary act in this case was so casual and incidental to the foreign forum that it
could not possibly serve as a jurisdictional predicate sufficient to grant conclusive effect to the default judgment
sued upon (CPLR 5304(a)5; see Falcon Manufacturing Ltd. v. Ames, 53 Misc.2d 332, 278 N.Y.S.2d 684).

Order, entered October 16, 1975 (Schackman, W., J.), affirmed, with $10 costs.

All concur.

N.Y.Sup. 1976.
Siedler v. Jacobson
86 Misc.2d 1010, 383 N.Y.S.2d 833

END OF DOCUMENT

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.