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.