New York Law Review

Tag: Foreign Judgment Enforcement

  • O’Connell v. O’Connell, 74 N.Y.2d 926 (1989): Enforceability of Modifiable Foreign Judgments

    O’Connell v. O’Connell, 74 N.Y.2d 926 (1989)

    A New York court is not constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to a foreign judgment that is not final under the laws of the issuing state, particularly if the judgment is modifiable.

    Summary

    This case addresses the enforceability of a New Hampshire alimony judgment in New York. The New York Court of Appeals held that because the New Hampshire judgment was modifiable under New Hampshire law, New York was not constitutionally required to give it full faith and credit. The Court clarified that enforcing the foreign judgment under Family Court Act § 466 (c) (i) did not transform it into a New York decree, and the Family Court’s powers are limited to the statute’s authorization. Once the alimony obligation expired under the terms of the New Hampshire decree, the New York Family Court lacked the authority to act further.

    Facts

    The petitioner sought an order from the New York Family Court to enforce a New Hampshire judgment regarding alimony. The New Hampshire judgment was for a fixed duration of three years. The petitioner sought enforcement under Family Court Act § 466 (c) (i), which allows for the enforcement of foreign judgments. After the three-year period specified in the New Hampshire judgment expired, the petitioner attempted to extend the alimony payments, but the Family Court denied the request.

    Procedural History

    The Family Court initially granted the petitioner’s application to enforce the New Hampshire judgment. However, after the alimony obligation’s three-year term expired, the Family Court refused to extend the payments. The Appellate Division order was brought up for review. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Family Court’s judgment and the Appellate Division order, holding that the New Hampshire judgment was not final and enforceable beyond its original terms.

    Issue(s)

    Whether New York is constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to a New Hampshire judgment for alimony when that judgment is modifiable under New Hampshire law.

    Holding

    No, because New York is not constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to a foreign judgment that is not final under the laws of the issuing state, and the New Hampshire judgment was modifiable.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals relied on the principle that full faith and credit need not be extended to foreign judgments that are not final. Citing Barber v. Barber and Sistare v. Sistare, the Court emphasized that modifiable judgments are not considered final. Because New Hampshire law (NH Rev Stat Annot § 458:19) allows for the modification of alimony judgments, the New Hampshire judgment lacked the finality required for mandatory full faith and credit. The court emphasized that the Family Court’s powers are restricted to those authorized by statute, citing Matter of Silver v Silver. The Court stated that the enforcement order operated only to enforce the provisions of the foreign decree in accordance with its express terms and not to renew, extend or modify the alimony provision. As the Court noted, “upon the expiration of the underlying alimony obligation after three years, there was no longer any obligation in respect thereto under the terms of the order of the issuing State.” The Court distinguished between enforcing a foreign judgment under Family Court Act § 466 (c) (i) and modifying it under § 466 (c) (ii), noting that the petitioner only sought enforcement, not modification. The Court also pointed out that the mere enforcement of the alimony award by the New York Family Court could not extend the duration of the award under the law of New Hampshire. The Court made reference to Clevesy v. Clevesy from the state of New Jersey for additional support.

  • Porisini v. Petricca, 90 A.D.2d 927 (1982): Enforceability of Foreign Judgments

    Porisini v. Petricca, 90 A.D.2d 927 (1982)

    A foreign judgment must be final, conclusive, and enforceable in its own jurisdiction before it can be recognized and enforced in New York State.

    Summary

    This case concerns the enforceability in New York of two money judgments obtained in English courts. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding that the English judgments were not “final, conclusive and enforceable” under CPLR 5302 due to their age and the lack of a writ of execution. The New York Court of Appeals reversed and remitted the case. The Court of Appeals noted that the plaintiff had subsequently obtained leave from the English court to issue a writ of execution. Because the Appellate Division had not addressed the defendants’ other arguments for denying recognition of the foreign judgments under CPLR 5304, the case was remitted for consideration of those remaining issues.

    Facts

    The plaintiff, Porisini, sought to enforce two money judgments obtained against the defendants, Petricca, in English courts.

    The Appellate Division initially determined that the English judgments were not considered “final, conclusive and enforceable” because of their age and the absence of a writ of execution issued by the English court.

    The plaintiff then obtained leave from the Queen’s Bench Division of England’s High Court of Justice to issue a writ of execution.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, enforcing the English judgments.

    The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s order and dismissed the complaint.

    The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and remitted the case to the Appellate Division for further consideration.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the English judgments were “final, conclusive and enforceable” under CPLR 5302, such that they could be enforced in New York.

    Holding

    Yes, the case is remitted to Appellate Division, because the plaintiff obtained leave to issue a writ of execution in England. The Appellate Division must now consider other arguments the defendants raised concerning recognition of the foreign judgement under CPLR 5304 which it had not previously addressed.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals focused on the plaintiff’s procurement of leave from the English court to issue a writ of execution. The court acknowledged that the Appellate Division based its decision on the perceived lack of enforceability of the English judgments under CPLR 5302. However, the Court of Appeals emphasized that the Appellate Division did not address the defendants’ other arguments under CPLR 5304, which provides both mandatory and discretionary grounds for denying recognition of foreign judgments. Since the initial basis for the Appellate Division’s ruling (lack of enforceability) was potentially resolved by the new evidence of the writ of execution, the Court of Appeals deemed it necessary to remit the case. This allows the Appellate Division to consider the remaining arguments for denying recognition under CPLR 5304. The court did not offer any extended reasoning and gave a short memorandum opinion.