comity doctrine in New York

2015Generally, the courts of this State will “accord recognition to the judgments rendered in a foreign country under the doctrine of comity,” which is “the equivalent of full faith and credit given by the courts to judgments of our sister States” (Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d 368, 376 [1980]; see Sung Hwan Co., Ltd. v Rite Aid Corp., 7 NY3d 78, 82 [2006]; Kuznetsov v Kuznetsova, 127 AD3d 1031 [2015]).

2012“A separation agreement incorporated in a valid foreign divorce judgment is also immune from challenge under the doctrine of comity, because such a challenge would essentially constitute an impermissible collateral attack on the foreign judgment” (Tal v Tal, 158 Misc 2d 703, 706 [Sup Ct, Nassau County 1993], citing Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d at 378 ).

2011“The doctrine of comity ‘is not a rule of law, but one of practice, convenience and expediency’ ” (Ehrlich-Bober & Co. v University of Houston, 49 NY2d 574, 580 [1980], quoting Mast, Foos & Co. v Stover Mfg.

2008It is settled that the doctrine of comity “is not a rule of law, but one of practice, convenience and expediency” (Ehrlich-Bober & Co. v University of Houston, 49 NY2d 574, 580 [1980], quoting Mast, Foos & Co. v Stover Mfg.

2015Generally, the courts of this State will “accord recognition to the judgments rendered in a foreign country under the doctrine of comity,” which is “the equivalent of full faith and credit given by the courts to judgments of our sister States” (Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d 368, 376 [1980]; see Sung Hwan Co., Ltd. v Rite Aid Corp., 7 NY3d 78, 82 [2006]; Kuznetsov v Kuznetsova, 127 AD3d 1031 [2015]).

2014“Historically, New York courts have accorded recognition to the judgments rendered in a foreign country under the doctrine of comity . . . [a]bsent some showing of fraud in the procurement of the foreign country judgment or that recognition of the judgment would do violence to some strong public policy of this State” (Sung Hwan Co., Ltd. v Rite Aid Corp., 7 NY3d 78, 82 [2006] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2011Co., 177 US 485, 488 [1900]).

2008Co., 177 US 485, 488 [1900]; see also Sachs v Adeli, 26 AD3d 52, 55 [2005]).

2017Having failed to show fraud in the procurement of the judgment or that recognition of the judgment would do violence to, or be fundamentally offensive and inimical to, some strong public policy of this State, plaintiff is precluded from attacking the validity of the judgment in this action (Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d 368, 376 [1980]; Matter of Gotlib v Ratsutsky, 83 NY2d 696, 699-700 [1994]).

2005Petitioner’s claim in this litigation is precluded by the doctrine of comity because a Japanese court of last resort ruled that petitioner is not such a shareholder (see Matter of Gotlib v Ratsutsky, 83 NY2d 696, 699-700 [1994]; Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d 368, 376 [1980]).

2020"The doctrine of comity 'refers to the spirit of cooperation in which a domestic tribunal approaches the resolution of cases touching the laws and interests of other sovereign states'" ( Morgenthau v Avion Resources Ltd. , 11 NY3d 383, 389 , quoting Byblos Bank Europe, S.A. v [*3]Sekerbank Turk Anonym Syrketi , 10 NY3d 243, 247 ).

2018Unlike judgments of sister states, to which the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution applies, judgments of foreign countries are recognized in New York under the doctrine of comity ( see Byblos Bank Europe, S.A. v Sekerbank Turk Anonym Syrketi , 10 NY3d 243, 247 [2008]), according to the principles and procedures set forth in article 53.

2015Most notably, principles of comity guided courts to grant recognition to same-sex marriages performed in other countries (Martinez v County of Monroe, 50 AD3d 189, 191 [4th Dept 2008]) and in other states (C.M. v C.C., 21 Misc 3d 926 [Sup Ct, NY County 2008]) prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York.” (Ponorovskaya v Stecklow, 45 Misc 3d 597, 604 [Sup Ct, NY County 2014].) However, the court there recognized that New York’s comity rule, while pliable in its reach to recognize marriages, is not elastic enough to transform a civil union in another state into a marriage in New Y

2014Most notably, principles of comity guided courts to grant recognition to same-sex marriages performed in other countries (Martinez v County of Monroe, 50 AD3d 189, 191 [4th Dept 2008]) and in other states (C.M. v C.C., 21 Misc 3d 926 [Sup Ct, NY County 2008]) prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage in New York.

2014In accordance with this tradition, New York adopted the Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act as CPLR article 53 (see John Galliano, S.A. v Stallion, Inc., 15 NY3d 75, 79 [2010], cert denied 562 US —, 131 S Ct 288 [2010]), which was intended to codify and clarify existing case law applicable to the recognition of foreign country money judgments based on principles of international comity, “and, more importantly, to promote the efficient enforcement of New York judgments abroad by assuring foreign jurisdictions that their judgments would receive streamlined enforcement here” (

2014In accordance with this tradition, New York adopted the Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act as CPLR article 53 (see John Galliano, S.A. v Stallion, Inc., 15 NY3d 75, 79 [2010], cert denied 562 US —, 131 S Ct 288 [2010]), which was intended to codify and clarify existing case law applicable to the recognition of foreign country money judgments based on principles of international comity, “and, more importantly, to promote the efficient enforcement of New York judgments abroad by assuring foreign jurisdictions that their judgments would receive streamlined enforcement here” (

2007Next, given New York’s strong public policy favoring arbitration (see Matter of Smith Barney v Hause, 91 NY2d 39, 49 [1997]), we do not agree with respondent’s contention that Supreme Court’s decision to stay the New Jersey action with respect to CCIC should be reversed on the basis of the doctrine of comity (see Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle v Garza-Morales, 308 AD2d 261, 265 [2003]).

2003We reject the view that any such evisceration of New York’s “long and strong public policy favoring arbitration” (Matter of Smith Barney Shearson v Sacharow, 91 NY2d 39, 49 [1997]) is required by the doctrine of comity.

1994Such a course of action would seriously undermine the "rare” public policy exception to the appropriate application of the doctrine of comity (Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d 368, 377 , supra; see also, Feinberg v Feinberg, 40 NY2d 124 , supra).

1993(Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d 368 ; Schoenbrod v Siegler, 20 NY2d 403 ; Rabbini v Rabbini, 178 AD2d 637 ; see generally, Restatement [Second] of Conflict of Laws § 84, at 169-171.) Absent some showing of fraud in the procurement of the foreign country judgment (Feinberg v Feinberg, 40 NY2d 124 ) or that recognition of the judgment would do violence to some strong public policy of this State (see, e.g., Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d 368, 377 , supra; Intercontinental Hotels Corp. v Golden, 15 NY2d 9, 13 ; Mertz v Mertz, 271 NY 466 ), a party who properly appeared in the action is precluded f

1993(Greschler v Greschler, supra, at 378; see also, McFarland v McFarland, 70 NY2d 916 ; Gaylyn v Schwartz, 56 NY2d 969 ; Rabbini v Rabbini, supra; Robinson v Robinson, 120 AD2d 415 .) In the instant action, the husband contends that the Tel Aviv Jaffa Rabbinical Court of the State of Israel had subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the parties herein such that this court should recognize the decree under the principle of comity.

1991It follows that separation agreements incorporated in valid foreign divorce judgments are also immune from challenges under the doctrine of comity, because such challenges would essentially amount to forbidden collateral attacks on foreign judgments (see, Greschler v Greschler, supra, at 378; see also, McFarland v McFarland, 70 NY2d 916, 917 ; Galyn v Schwartz, 56 NY2d 969, 972 ; Robinson v Robinson, 120 AD2d 415, 416 ).

1996The doctrine of comity is the "legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international duty and convenience, and to the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the protection of its laws” (Hilton v Guyot, 159 US 113, 164 ).

1994A recognition of a foreign court decree is dependent on the doctrine of comity (Hilton v Guyot, 159 US 113 ).

2018In Debra H. v Janice R. ( 14 NY3d 576 [2010], rearg denied 15 NY3d 767 [2010], cert denied 562 US 1136 [2011]), the Court of Appeals "invoked the common law doctrine of comity to rule that, because [a] couple had entered into a civil union in Vermont prior to [a] child's birth—and because the union afforded Debra H. parental status under Vermont law—her parental status should be recognized under New York Law as well" ( Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C. , 28 NY3d 1, 22 [2016]).

2016After discussing the facts of the case and the doctrine of comity, the court determined that “the parties’ decade long history and residence in California,” and the Court of Appeals decision in Debra H. v Janice R. (14 NY3d 576 *96 [2010]), warranted the application of California law to this matter.

1994In any event, where the judgment has been obtained by default, after personal jurisdiction over the defaulting party has been obtained, the judgment is entitled to recognition under the doctrine of comity, absent evidence of extrinsic fraud (see, Greschler v Greschler, supra; see also, Tamimi v Tamimi, 38 AD2d 197 ).

1991(Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d 368, 376 ; Tamimi v Tamimi, 38 AD2d 197 .) The distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud is defined as follows: " ' "Intrinsic fraud is fraud which goes to the existence of a cause of action, and is held to be no defense.

2025It belongs exclusively to each sovereignty to determine for itself whether it can enforce a foreign law without, at the same time, neglecting the duty that it owes to its own citizens or subjects" ( id. at 24-25 ).

1911In Marshall v. Sherman, 148 N. Y. 9 , it is said that the doctrine of comity has many limitations, that it belongs exclusively to each sovereignty to determine for itself whether it can enforce a foreign law without at the same time neglecting its duty to its own citizens, and that in this State there are a number of foreign laws and statutes which have no force in this jurisdiction under the doctrine of comity, and that “ it has been held, and is a principle universally recognized, that the revenue laws of one country have no force in another.” The demurrers must be sustained, with costs.

2020"The doctrine of comity 'refers to the spirit of cooperation in which a domestic tribunal approaches the resolution of cases touching the laws and interests of other sovereign states'" ( Morgenthau v Avion Resources Ltd. , 11 NY3d 383, 389 , quoting Byblos Bank Europe, S.A. v [*3]Sekerbank Turk Anonym Syrketi , 10 NY3d 243, 247 ).

2017The court properly declined to apply the doctrine of comity to the French court’s recognition of the vacated award (see Morgenthau v Avion Resources Ltd., 11 NY3d 383, 389-390 [2008]).

2010It is well settled that, because of the doctrine of comity, “[t]he use of the injunctive power to prohibit a person from resorting to a foreign court is a power rarely and sparingly employed.” (Arpels v Arpels, 8 NY2d 339, 341 [1960].) However, such injunctive power may be exercised where the party who seeks to enjoin a proceeding of a sister state or foreign court of competent jurisdiction clearly demonstrates that “the suit sought to be enjoined was brought in bad faith, motivated by fraud or an intent to harass the party seeking an injunction, or [that] its purpose was to evade the law of t

2003In arguing that our policy favoring arbitration is overridden in this case by the countervailing doctrine of comity, the dissent and Garza-Morales rely primarily on a 1960 Court of Appeals decision, Arpels v Arpels ( 8 NY2d 339 [1960]), and a 1985 decision of this Court, Faberge Intl. v Di Pino ( 109 AD2d 235 [1985]).

2006The public policy inquiry rarely results in refusal to enforce a judgment unless it is “inherently vicious, wicked or immoral, and shocking to the prevailing moral sense” (Intercontinental Hotels Corp. [Puerto Rico] v Golden, 15 NY2d 9, 13 [1964]).

1993(Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d 368 ; Schoenbrod v Siegler, 20 NY2d 403 ; Rabbini v Rabbini, 178 AD2d 637 ; see generally, Restatement [Second] of Conflict of Laws § 84, at 169-171.) Absent some showing of fraud in the procurement of the foreign country judgment (Feinberg v Feinberg, 40 NY2d 124 ) or that recognition of the judgment would do violence to some strong public policy of this State (see, e.g., Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d 368, 377 , supra; Intercontinental Hotels Corp. v Golden, 15 NY2d 9, 13 ; Mertz v Mertz, 271 NY 466 ), a party who properly appeared in the action is precluded f

2024"Under CPLR article 53, a judgment issued by a foreign country is recognized and enforceable in New York State if it is 'final, conclusive and enforceable where rendered' " ( Daguerre, S.A.R.L. v Rabizadeh , 112 AD3d 876, 877 [2d Dept 2013], quoting CPLR 5302 [a] [2]).