New York Law Review

Tag: Porisini v. Petricca

  • 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.