The case of the day is Sung Hwan Co. v. Rite Aid Corp. (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). The opinion is cryptic and tantalizing—I’ll do my best to decipher it. It seems that Sung Hwan claimed that Rite Aid had “owned [an] ice cream plant that manufactured and sold listeria-tainted ice cream to” Sung Hwan, and that Sung Hwan had obtained a judgment against Rite Aid in Korea. Sung Hwan sought recognition and enforcement of the judgment in New York, and that Rite Aid opposed recognition and enforcement on the grounds that the Korean court had lacked personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court (New York’s court of first instance) decided the case in Rite Aid’s favor on summary judgment, but on appeal the Appellate Division reversed. Rite Aid had offered evidence tending to show that the factories were owned by its subsidiary, Thrifty Payless, Inc., but Sung Hwan had offered evidence tending to show that Rite Aid owned the factories directly. There was, therefore, a question for trial.