Dodson v Adorama Camera Inc. 2025 NY Slip Op 51258(U) Decided on July 10, 2025
Supreme Court, New York County Lebovits, J. holds that there is no Judiciary Law 487 violation in opposing this particular action seeking to domesticate a valid sister-state judgment.

“This is an action to domesticate a South Carolina judgment obtained by plaintiff, Robert Dodson, against defendants, Adorama Camera Inc. and Adorama Inc. Plaintiff now moves under CPLR 3212 for summary judgment. The motion is granted.

Plaintiff’s motion papers establish, prima facie, that plaintiff obtained a valid default judgment in South Carolina against defendants. And “[a]bsent a jurisdictional challenge, a final judgment entered upon the defendant’s default in appearing in an action is conclusive and entitled to be given full faith and credit in the courts of this State.” (GNOC Corp. v Cappelletti, 208 AD2d 498, 498 [2d Dept 1994].) However, when, as here, defendants challenge whether the rendering jurisdiction had personal jurisdiction over them, the New York courts must determine whether jurisdiction existed. (TCA Global Credit Master Fund, L.P. v Puresafe Water Sys., Inc., 151 AD3d [*2]1098, 1099 [2d Dept 2017].)

The difficulty for defendants is that they already raised this same jurisdictional challenge in South Carolina—and lost. In particular, defendants’ position here is that the South Carolina courts lacked personal jurisdiction over them due to improper service. (See NYSCEF No. 15 at 3-4.) Defendants raised this same contention before the South Carolina courts in moving to vacate the default judgment that plaintiff had obtained against them. (See NYSCEF No. 20 at 3-4.) It is undisputed that the court of first instance in South Carolina considered defendants’ jurisdictional contention and, after hearing oral argument, rejected it. (See NYSCEF No. 22 at 1.) It is also undisputed that the decision issued by the court to explain its determination squarely rejected defendants’ challenge to the validity of service.^[FN1] (See NYSCEF No. 23 at 3-4.)

Given the South Carolina courts’ rejection, as a matter of South Carolina law, of defendants’ challenge to service, this court is unpersuaded that defendants have raised a material dispute of fact about whether personal jurisdiction over them existed in South Carolina. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is granted.^[FN2] At the same time, plaintiff has not shown that defendants’ opposition to the current motion (or defendants’ characterization of the South Carolina decision denying vacatur) was frivolous or rested on sanctionable misrepresentations. Thus, to the extent that plaintiff seeks monetary sanctions against defendants or their counsel under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 or Judiciary Law § 487, that request is denied.”