11 N.Y.3d 384 (2008)

Compliance with CPLR 313 alone constitutes proper service upon foreign defendants in New York actions when no treaties or international agreements supplant New York’s service requirements; principles of international comity do not mandate compliance with the foreign nation’s service laws.

Summary

New York County District Attorney Morgenthau initiated a civil forfeiture action against Brazilian depositors allegedly involved in an illegal international money transfer scheme. The defendants argued that service was improper because it did not comply with Brazilian law, which requires service via letters rogatory. The New York Court of Appeals held that service under CPLR 313 was sufficient because no treaty mandated a specific form of service, and principles of comity did not require importing foreign service laws. The court emphasized that CPLR 313 allows service outside the state in the same manner as within the state, aiming to enhance the possibility of acquiring personal jurisdiction over non-residents.

Facts

Federal agents uncovered an alleged international money transfer scheme operating from Brazil to Manhattan. Defendants allegedly violated Brazilian currency laws and New York banking laws by transferring money through a money transfer station. Federal authorities seized over $21 million but were later ordered to relinquish control of the funds. Subsequently, District Attorney Morgenthau commenced a civil forfeiture action pursuant to CPLR article 13-A, seeking $636,924,865. Plaintiff served 14 individual defendants and representatives of five corporate defendants in Brazil, utilizing methods prescribed under the CPLR. Some defendants were served through their attorneys under alternative service methods.

Procedural History

The Supreme Court vacated an attachment order and dismissed the complaint, concluding that service failed to comply with the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory and Brazilian service requirements, violating principles of comity. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in declining to confirm the attachment orders and holding that service procedures were improper for failing to comply with Brazilian law and comity principles. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether service of process pursuant to CPLR 313 on defendants in a foreign country is sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction, or whether one must additionally satisfy the service requirements of that foreign locale.

Holding

No, because compliance with CPLR 313 alone constitutes proper service upon foreign defendants where no treaties or international agreements supplant New York’s service requirements, and principles of international comity do not mandate a different result.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the plain language of CPLR 313 does not require fulfilling a foreign locale’s service of process requirements. The statute allows service outside the state “in the same manner as service is made within the state.” The court emphasized the statute’s purpose of removing state lines and enhancing the possibility of acquiring personal jurisdiction over non-residents. The court stated, “[T]he permissive methods of service without the state have been increased in order to enhance the possibility of acquiring in personam jurisdiction over non-residents subject to our courts’ jurisdiction.” The court found that principles of comity did not compel a different result, as comity need not be applied to service of process issues where the CPLR’s requirements of service upon foreign defendants are fulfilled. “[C]omity is not an additional hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome in serving a party in a foreign country.” The court distinguished situations involving treaties, like the Hague Service Convention, which mandate specific forms of service, but noted that Brazil is not a signatory to that convention. While both the US and Brazil are signatories to the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory, Article 2 of that treaty does not mandate letters rogatory as the exclusive means of service. Since CPLR 313 was satisfied for the individual and corporate defendants, the service was proper.