From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cantara v. Peeler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 1999
267 A.D.2d 997 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Summary

holding that Article 10 permits service by mail upon residents of Canada because Canada has not objected to service through postal channels

Summary of this case from Menon v. Water Splash, Inc.

Opinion

December 30, 1999

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sconiers, J. — Dismiss Pleading.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.

PRESENT: PINE, J. P., HAYES, WISNER, PIGOTT, JR., AND SCUDDER, JJ.


Memorandum:

Supreme Court properly denied the motions of George Bello, Paul J. James and Paul O'Rourke (defendants) seeking dismissal of the complaint against them for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendants are Canadian citizens who were involved in a multi-vehicle accident on Route 190 in Erie County. Defendants were properly served by mail pursuant to section 253 Veh. Traf. of the Vehicle and Traffic Law ( see, Martin v. Mieth, 35 N.Y.2d 414, 415-416; Gay v. Laurent, 179 A.D.2d 411; see also, Sadek v. Stewart, 38 A.D.2d 655). Jurisdiction was acquired upon the mailing of the summons and complaint by certified mail, return receipt requested ( see, Albrecht v. Gordon, 182 A.D.2d 1131). We reject defendants' contention that service of process was not in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (Hague Convention) (20 UST 361, TIAS 6638 [1969]). "Article 10 [of the Hague Convention] permits service of process by mail directly to the person abroad provided that the State of designation does not object in its ratification to such service" ( Low v. Bayerische Motoren Werke, 88 A.D.2d 504, 505; see, Philip v. Monarch Knitting Mach. Corp., 169 A.D.2d 603, 604), and Canada has not objected "to service by postal channels" (Fed Rules Civ Pro, rule 4, 1999 Supp Pamph, at 133; see, Rissew v. Yamaha Motor Co., 129 A.D.2d 94, 98).


Summaries of

Cantara v. Peeler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 30, 1999
267 A.D.2d 997 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

holding that Article 10 permits service by mail upon residents of Canada because Canada has not objected to service through postal channels

Summary of this case from Menon v. Water Splash, Inc.
Case details for

Cantara v. Peeler

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD W. CANTARA, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. DANIEL PEELER, RICHARD I…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Dec 30, 1999

Citations

267 A.D.2d 997 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
701 N.Y.S.2d 556

Citing Cases

Sardanis v. Sumitomo Corp.

Even in New York there has been a division of authority among the departments of the Appellate Division. This…

New York State Thruway Authority v. Fenech

There, the Second Department noted that article 19 "permits service by any method permitted by the internal…