Opinion
March 3, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William J. Davis, J.).
The Michigan court had jurisdiction over defendants FAW and FDI. Review of the evidence demonstrates that, in light of, inter alia, the instant agency and distribution agreements which provided for the parties to transact business in Michigan, which they in fact did, Michigan had jurisdiction over defendants (see, Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253); nor do we find any evidence that the default judgment was fraudulently obtained. (Boorman v. Deutsch, 152 A.D.2d 48, 54, lv dismissed 76 N.Y.2d 889. )
Michigan's judgment has res judicata effect with regard to the instant parties and their claims. Indeed, all the above-captioned parties are either the same parties in the Michigan action or are in privity with said parties, and all the alleged issues were either raised in the Michigan action or could have been raised in said action (see, Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597). That the Michigan judgment was entered on default does not affect its preclusive effect (Silverman v. Leucadia, Inc., 156 A.D.2d 442, 444; Schwartz v. City of Flint, 187 Mich. App. 191, 466 N.W.2d 357, 359-360, lv denied 439 Mich. 863, cert denied ___ US ___, 112 S Ct 1562).
Finally, while the appeal from the March 9, 1993 "decision" is not appealable since no order or judgment appears to have been entered upon said decision (CPLR 5512), if an order or judgment were to have been properly entered and appealed, we would affirm since the determination to restore the case to the calendar, after plaintiff's corporate charter had been reinstated, was a valid exercise of the trial court's discretion.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ellerin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.