USA – NEW YORK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Christopher Harris and Leah Friedman, Latham & Watkins
pending, a court presented with a recognition appli - cation has the discretion to stay the recognition pro - ceeding pending resolution of the foreign appeal. See Batbrothers LLC v Paushok , No 653787/2017, 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5720, at *17 (Sup. Ct. 12 Dec. 2018) (noting the court’s discretion to stay recognition of foreign judgment pending foreign appeals). Money judgments versus non-money judgments As noted above, Article 53 applies exclusively to mon - ey judgments. See CPLR Section 5302 (a)(1) (statute applies to a foreign judgment that “grants or denies recovery of a sum of money”). No statute directly provides for the recognition of non-money judgments such as judgments for declaratory or injunctive relief. However, those judgments may be recognised under common law principles of comity. See Hertzano v Pressman Toy Corp ., No 654488/2023, 2024 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 61714, at *5 (Sup. Ct. 8 Feb. 2024) (deny - ing motion to dismiss application for recognition of Israeli declaratory judgment, citing comity principles). Exclusions from scope Article 53 excludes from its scope foreign penal judg - ments, judgments for taxes, and judgments in domes - tic relations matters (such as divorce, maintenance, or domestic support orders). See CPLR Section 5302 (b). Although not enforceable under Article 53, domes - tic support orders are enforceable under New York’s Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. Also, foreign divorce and custody judgments may be recognised under common law principles of comity. See D . S . S . v C . B ., No 604513/2025, 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3571, at *1 (Sup. Ct. 29 Apr. 2025) (recognising Swiss divorce judgment under comity principles); S . B . v W . A ., 959 N.Y.S.2d 802, 810 (Sup. Ct. 26 Sept. 2012) (recognis - ing UAE divorce decree providing for child custody). Foreign tax judgments, by contrast, are generally not enforceable in New York, although the question of what constitutes a “tax” is often litigated. See United States v Trapilo , 130 F.3d 547, 550 (2d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 812 (1998) (“[C]ourts will normally not enforce foreign tax judgments”); Kingdom of Swe- den v Nowacki , No 14-cv-1259, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120740, at *24–27 (S.D. Cal. 28 Aug. 2015) (student loan not a “tax”). Foreign penal judgments are simi - larly excluded from enforcement under New York law, although the question of what constitutes a “penal”
judgment is also often litigated. United States v Feder- ative Republic of Brazil , 748 F.3d 86, 91 (2d Cir. 2014) (“The penal law rule is an exception to the generally recognised principle of international comity”) (internal quotations omitted). In addition, one federal statute specifically limits the circumstances in which a foreign defamation judg - ment may be recognised. Under the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Consti - tutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act, 28 U.S.C Sections 4101–4105, U.S. courts may not recognise a foreign defamation judgment unless the defamation law applied in the underlying foreign proceeding confers at least as much protection for freedom of expression and the press as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and/or corresponding provisions of state constitutions. Mandatory Grounds for Non-Recognition Article 53 specifies three grounds upon which a New York court must refuse to recognise a foreign judg - ment. Lack of impartial tribunals or due process Recognition must be denied if the judgment was ren - dered under a system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures that are generally compatible with the requirements of due process. See CPLR Sec - tion 5304 (a)(1). The foreign procedures need not mir - ror American procedures in all respects; courts con - sider whether the rendering court’s procedures were “fundamentally fair”. See, for example, Bridgeway Corp . v Citibank , 201 F.3d 134, 141–44 (2d Cir. 2000) (affirming district court judgment refusing recognition of a Liberian judgment on the ground that the Liberian judiciary did not provide impartial tribunals during the relevant period). Lack of personal jurisdiction Recognition must be denied if the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant under the principles applied by U.S. courts. CPLR Sec - tion 5304 (a)(2); USI Sys . AG v Gliklad , 111 N.Y.S.3d 270, 272 (App. Div. 2019) (“We apply New York, not Swiss, law, to our analysis of whether the Swiss court had personal jurisdiction over defendant”). Bases for personal jurisdiction that New York courts deem
515 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook