foreign sovereign immunity in New York

2016The Second Circuit held that the judgment could be enforced against an EFT blocked pursuant to the sanctions “only where either the [foreign] state itself or an agency or instrumentality thereof . . . transmitted the EFT directly to the bank where the EFT is held pursuant to the block” ( 770 F3d at 1002 ).

2016The Second Circuit held that the judgment could be enforced against an EFT blocked pursuant to the sanctions “only where either the [foreign] state itself or an agency or instrumentality thereof . . . transmitted the EFT directly to the bank where the EFT is held pursuant to the block” ( 770 F3d at 1002 ).

1975(New York & Cuba Mail S. S. Co. v Republic of Korea, 132 F Supp 684 ; Et Ve Balik Kurumu v B.N.S.

1960It rests on considerations of policy given legal sanction by this Court.” In New York & Cuba Mail S. S. Co. v. Republic of Korea ( 132 F. Supp. 684, 686 ) the court uttered the following: “It must be recognized that primarily the claim of a foreign sovereign of immunity from suit or process presents a political rather than a judicial question.

2011Davis v United States, 343 F3d 1282, 1293-1294 [10th Cir 2003], cert denied 542 US 937 [2004] [“plaintiffs inability to obtain relief in an alternative forum is not as weighty a factor when the source of that inability is a public policy that immunizes the absent person from suit”]).

2011Davis v United States, 343 F3d 1282, 1293-1294 [10th Cir 2003], cert denied 542 US 937 [2004] [“plaintiffs inability to obtain relief in an alternative forum is not as weighty a factor when the source of that inability is a public policy that immunizes the absent person from suit”]).

2011While we sympathize with the class’s efforts to vindicate this interest, and notwithstanding the general principle that dismissal for nonjoinder of a necessary party is a last resort (see L-3 Communications Corp. v SafeNet, Inc., 45 AD3d 1, 11 [2007]), it remains the case that a dismissal for nonjoinder that leaves claimants “without a forum for definitive resolution of their claims” is a “result . . . contemplated under the doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity” (Pimentel, 553 US at 872 ; see also Davis ex rel.

2011While we sympathize with the class’s efforts to vindicate this interest, and notwithstanding the general principle that dismissal for nonjoinder of a necessary party is a last resort (see L-3 Communications Corp. v SafeNet, Inc., 45 AD3d 1, 11 [2007]), it remains the case that a dismissal for nonjoinder that leaves claimants “without a forum for definitive resolution of their claims” is a “result . . . contemplated under the doctrine of foreign sovereign immunity” (Pimentel, 553 US at 872 ; see also Davis ex rel.

1975(Petrol Shipping Corp. v Kingdom of Greece, 360 F2d 103; Heaney v Government of Spain, 445 F2d 501; Isbrandtsen Tankers v President of India, 446 F2d 1198; Three Stars Trading Co. v Republic of Cuba, 32 Misc 2d 4 .) The rule making an executive suggestion that immunity be granted or denied conclusive upon the courts rests on the grounds that primarily the claim of a foreign sovereign of immunity from suit presents a political rather than a judicial question.

1944The Department of State having taken action upon the first three questions formulated in the order of reference and its action having been certified to the court4 4 the judicial department of this government *273 follows the action of the political branch, and will not embarrass the latter by assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction.” (United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196, 209 ; Ex Parte Peru, supra.) Apparently, however, upon the proceedings in the Appellate Division the court and the parties overlooked the fact that though the Department of State recognized and allowed the claim that Petróleos M