Proskauer Rose International Practice Guide Proskauer Rose LLP | Proskauer.com
      Proskauer on International Litigation and Dispute Resolution:
       Managing, Resolving, and Avoiding Cross-Border Business or Regulatory Disputes
 ABOUT US  |  TRENDS  |  NEWS & EVENTS  |  CONTACT  |  AUTHORS
Text Size:  A  A  A
Print Print
  1. Non-U.S. judgments will not fail to be recognized merely where there are divergences between the U.S. and the non-U.S. legal system.
    1. “[I]t is well established that mere divergence from American procedure does not render a foreign judgment unenforceable.” Pariente v. Scott Meredith Literary Agency, Inc., 771 F. Supp. 609, 616 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
    2. In fact, “considerations of comity preclude a court from adversely judging the quality of a foreign justice system absent a showing of inadequate procedural safeguards.” P.T. United Can Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 138 F.3d 65, 73 (2d Cir. 1998).
    3. Consistent with comity’s respect and tolerance for the adjudications of other nations, recognition is not to be denied merely because non-U.S. law or procedures differ from the U.S. Ackermann v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830, 842 (2d Cir. 1986) (“mere variance with local public policy is not sufficient to decline enforcement”); Canadian Imperial Bank v. Saxony Carpet Co., 899 F. Supp. 1248, 1252 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), aff’d, 104 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 1996) (“mere divergence from American procedure does not render a foreign judgment unenforceable”); Pariente v. Scott Meredith Literary Agency, Inc., 771 F. Supp. 609, 616-17 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (principles of comity and CPLR §§ 5302-5304 “counsel against microscopic review by this Court”).
      1. In Justice Cardozo’s words, “We are not so provincial as to say that every solution of a problem is wrong because we deal with it otherwise at home.” Loucks v. Standard Oil Co., 224 N.Y. 99, 111 (1918).
  2. Accordingly, courts enforce foreign judgments despite complaints that the foreign country’s law or procedure differs from the U.S. Watts v. Swiss Bank Corp., 27 N.Y.2d 270, 278-79 (1970); Harris S.A. v. Grupo Sistemas Integrales de Telecomunicación S.A., 279 A.D.2d 263, 263 (1st Dep’t 2001).
    1. Practice Tip: In New York, although CPLR § 5304(a) imposes requirements that the foreign judicial system had procedures compatible with due process and the foreign court had jurisdiction over the defendant, it is not required that the foreign court’s procedures or jurisdiction conform to New York’s. CPLR § 5304(a)(2) requires only that the foreign court had jurisdiction — not that it had jurisdiction as defined by CPLR § 302(a) or New York law or the U.S. Supreme Court.
    2. Indeed, CPLR § 5305(b) specifically permits the court to recognize “other bases of jurisdiction” beyond the common bases specifically enumerated in § 5305(a). Similarly, § 5304(a)(1) requires only that there be a system compatible with the requirements of due process.

< Previous Section | Next Section >