French Court Never Had Personal Jurisdiction Over New York Defendant/Service Not Accomplished In Accordance with Hague Convention

The Second Department determined a foreign (French) judgment could not be enforced in New York because the plaintiff did not demonstrate the French court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant.  The defendant was not served in the French action in accordance with the Hague convention:

…[A] foreign country judgment is not conclusive, and thus may not be recognized, if (1) it was “rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law” or (2) “the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant” (CPLR 5304[a][1]…). A plaintiff seeking enforcement of a foreign country judgment bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that the mandatory grounds for nonrecognition do not exist … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that the Superior Court of Paris had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Pursuant to the Hague Convention, service in a signatory country may be made, inter alia, “by a method prescribed by its internal law for the service of documents in domestic actions upon persons who are within its territory” (20 UST 361[5][a]). In the United States, the methods prescribed for service under the Hague Convention are set forth in Rule 4(e)(1) and (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure … . Rule 4(e)(1) authorizes service to be made by “following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where service is made,” and Rule 4(e)(2) sets forth three specific authorized methods of service. …[P]laintiff submitted the affidavit of a process server indicating that service was effected by delivering the writ of summons to a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant’s place of business in New York. Delivery of the summons to a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant’s actual place of business is a state law method of service authorized by CPLR 308(2), and thus permissible under Rule 4(e)(1). However, CPLR 308(2) additionally requires that the summons be mailed to either the defendant’s last known address or actual place of business, and personal jurisdiction is not acquired pursuant to CPLR 308(2) unless both the delivery and mailing requirements have been complied with … . Since the affidavit of the plaintiff’s process server did not aver that the writ of summons was additionally mailed to the defendant, it was insufficient to establish, prima facie, that service was properly effected pursuant to CPLR 308(2) …, and therefore conformed to Rule 4(e)(1). Daguerre, S.A.R.L. v Rabizadeh, 2013 NY Slip Op 08587, 2nd Dept 12-26-13