90 A.D.3d 710
N.Y. App. Div.2011Background
- This action enforces a sister-state judgment in New Jersey, invoking the full faith and credit clause.
- Full faith and credit requires the rendering judgment to have the same effect in all U.S. courts as in the rendering state.
- New Jersey long-arm jurisdiction over nonresidents is permitted if due process is satisfied under Rule 4:4-4 and the U.S. Constitution.
- Due process requires minimum contacts and that the defendant’s contacts arise from purposeful conduct, not plaintiff’s unilateral actions.
- Here, the defendant engaged in a transaction by mail and telephone with a New Jersey seller represented by a New Jersey attorney, relating to property in New Jersey.
- The trial court and again on reargument held the New Jersey judgment entitled to full faith and credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the New Jersey judgment is entitled to full faith and credit | Bennett and related authorities support crediting the judgment nationwide. | Credit should be denied if personal jurisdiction was lacking. | Yes; the New Jersey judgment is entitled to full faith and credit. |
| Whether New Jersey long-arm jurisdiction over defendant satisfies due process | Defendant’s purposeful mail/phone negotiation established minimum contacts. | Contacts were insufficient to justify jurisdiction. | Yes; long-arm jurisdiction satisfied due process. |
| Whether due process analysis relies on rendering court's jurisdiction and forum statutes | Review is limited to the rendering forum’s jurisdiction and due process considerations. | The standard for review should be broader or different. | The analysis properly restricted to rendering court’s jurisdiction and due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- Matter of Bennett, 84 AD3d 1365 (2011) (full faith and credit applies to judgments of sister states)
- Madjar v Rosa, 83 AD3d 1011 (2011) (recognizes full faith and credit effect across states)
- Progressive Intl. Co. v Varun Cont., Ltd., 16 AD3d 476 (2005) (default judgments can receive full faith and credit)
- Fiore v Oakwood Plaza Shopping Ctr., 78 NY2d 572 (1991) (review limited to rendering court’s jurisdiction and due process)
- Augusta Lbr. & Supply v Sabbeth Corp., 101 AD2d 846 (1984) (discusses long-arm jurisdiction and due process)
- Desai v Sterling Fibers, 288 AD2d 428 (2001) (concerns jurisdictional review related to judgments)
- Avdel Corp. v Mecure, 58 NJ 264 (1971) (controls long-arm jurisdiction consistent with due process)
- Calder v Jones, 465 US 783 (1984) (minimum contacts for due process)
- Lebel v Everglades Mar., Inc., 115 NJ 317 (1989) (purposeful conduct required for long-arm jurisdiction)
- Halak v Scovill, 296 NJ Super 363 (1997) (long-arm based on external conduct with forum effects)
- Wolpert v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 231 NJ Super 378 (1989) (recognizes long-arm considerations for nonresident defendants)
- Halley v Myatt, 2010 WL 1753110 (2010) (illustrates long-arm analysis in unpublished context)
- Lee v Rah, 2011 WL 2802794 (2011) (illustrates due process and jurisdiction in unpublished context)