The Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in New York

The enforcement of foreign judgments in New York is a matter of practical significance for international litigants, given the city’s role as a global commercial and financial centre and the presence of material assets that may be available to satisfy judgments. However, foreign judgment enforcement can be a complicated exercise. The U.S. does not have a single, unified statute that governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments nationwide. In New York, the analysis is principally governed by Article 53 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules.

This guide seeks to simplify the legal, procedural, and strategic factors to navigate when seeking to recognise and enforce foreign judgments in New York. First, it addresses the threshold requirements for recognition of foreign judgments under Article 53, and the mandatory and discretionary grounds for non-recognition. It then reviews the procedural mechanisms that apply in recognition and enforcement proceedings, and the strategic considerations relevant to commencing those proceedings.

The Legal Landscape

A litigant wishing to implement a foreign judgement in New York must take two steps. First, they must have the judgment “recognised” by a court of competent jurisdiction. Then, they may seek to enforce it in the same manner as they would a domestic judgment.

New York Law as the primary source of law

New York law on the recognition of foreign judgments is drawn from two statutory instruments – the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act of 2005 (the “2005 Act”) and its predecessor statute, the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act of 1962 (the “1962 Act”) (together, the “Uniform Acts”). The 1962 Act was the first uniform statute in the U.S. to address the recognition of foreign judgments, and it served as the dominant framework for judgment recognition for several decades after its enactment. The 2005 Act updated the 1962 Act, introducing important procedural and substantive modifications. Both Acts apply exclusively to foreign money judgments.

New York adopted the 1962 Act in 1970, and in 2021 adopted the 2005 Act in its place, codified as Article 53 of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”).

Absence of binding federal law

As noted above, there is no federal statute of general application that governs the recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments. The U.S. has signed – but not ratified – the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, which provides a multilateral framework for the mutual recognition of judgments by state parties, and applies to civil judgments on the merits (including, as distinct from the Uniform Acts, non-money judgments). Because the Convention has not been ratified, however, it has no binding legal effect in the country. New York law governs foreign-judgment recognition proceedings within the state.

Threshold Requirements for Recognition

Under Article 53, a judgment creditor must satisfy certain threshold requirements before a New York court will recognise their foreign judgment.

Finality

First, the judgment must be final, conclusive, and enforceable in the country where it was rendered. See CPLR Section 5302(a)(2) (a foreign judgment is “final” if it is enforceable in the country where it was rendered). Id. “A judgment is enforceable where rendered within the meaning of New York law if the prevailing party need not take any additional action to secure the awarded sum of money”. Banca Di Credito Cooperativo di Civitanova Marche e Montecosaro Soc. Cooperativa v Small, No 18-cv-11399, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220066, at *6–7 (S.D.N.Y. 19 Dec. 2019) (internal quotation omitted).

Even if the judgment debtor is actively appealing the underlying ruling, the judgment may still be considered final if the laws of the rendering jurisdiction allow it to be enforced. See CPLR Section 5302(a)(2) (a foreign judgment may be recognised “even though an appeal therefrom is pending or it is subject to appeal”). Alesawy v Badawi, 57 N.Y.S.3d 879, 957 (Sup. Ct. 2017). In cases where an appeal is still pending, a court presented with a recognition application has the discretion to stay the recognition proceeding pending resolution of the foreign appeal. See Batbrothers LLC v Paushok, No 653787/2017, 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5720, at *17 (Sup. Ct. 12 Dec. 2018) (noting the court’s discretion to stay recognition of foreign judgment pending foreign appeals).

Money judgments versus non-money judgments

As noted above, Article 53 applies exclusively to money judgments. See CPLR Section 5302(a)(1) (statute applies to a foreign judgment that “grants or denies recovery of a sum of money”). No statute directly provides for the recognition of non-money judgments such as judgments for declaratory or injunctive relief. However, those judgments may be recognised under common law principles of comity. See Hertzano v Pressman Toy Corp., No 654488/2023, 2024 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 61714, at *5 (Sup. Ct. 8 Feb. 2024) (denying motion to dismiss application for recognition of Israeli declaratory judgment, citing comity principles).

Exclusions from scope

Article 53 excludes from its scope foreign penal judgments, judgments for taxes, and judgments in domestic relations matters (such as divorce, maintenance, or domestic support orders). See CPLR Section 5302(b). Although not enforceable under Article 53, domestic support orders are enforceable under New York’s Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. Also, foreign divorce and custody judgments may be recognised under common law principles of comity. See D.S.S. v C.B., No 604513/2025, 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3571, at *1 (Sup. Ct. 29 Apr. 2025) (recognising Swiss divorce judgment under comity principles); S.B. v W.A., 959 N.Y.S.2d 802, 810 (Sup. Ct. 26 Sept. 2012) (recognising UAE divorce decree providing for child custody). Foreign tax judgments, by contrast, are generally not enforceable in New York, although the question of what constitutes a “tax” is often litigated. See United States v Trapilo, 130 F.3d 547, 550 (2d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 812 (1998) (“[C]ourts will normally not enforce foreign tax judgments”); Kingdom of Sweden v Nowacki, No 14-cv-1259, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120740, at *24–27 (S.D. Cal. 28 Aug. 2015) (student loan not a “tax”). Foreign penal judgments are similarly excluded from enforcement under New York law, although the question of what constitutes a “penal” judgment is also often litigated. United States v Federative Republic of Brazil, 748 F.3d 86, 91 (2d Cir. 2014) (“The penal law rule is an exception to the generally recognised principle of international comity”) (internal quotations omitted).

In addition, one federal statute specifically limits the circumstances in which a foreign defamation judgment may be recognised. Under the Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act, 28 U.S.C Sections 4101–4105, U.S. courts may not recognise a foreign defamation judgment unless the defamation law applied in the underlying foreign proceeding confers at least as much protection for freedom of expression and the press as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and/or corresponding provisions of state constitutions.

Mandatory Grounds for Non-Recognition

Article 53 specifies three grounds upon which a New York court must refuse to recognise a foreign judgment.

Lack of impartial tribunals or due process

Recognition must be denied if the judgment was rendered under a system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures that are generally compatible with the requirements of due process. See CPLR Section 5304(a)(1). The foreign procedures need not mirror American procedures in all respects; courts consider whether the rendering court’s procedures were “fundamentally fair”. See, for example, Bridgeway Corp. v Citibank, 201 F.3d 134, 141–44 (2d Cir. 2000) (affirming district court judgment refusing recognition of a Liberian judgment on the ground that the Liberian judiciary did not provide impartial tribunals during the relevant period).

Lack of personal jurisdiction

Recognition must be denied if the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant under the principles applied by U.S. courts. CPLR Section 5304(a)(2); USI Sys. AG v Gliklad, 111 N.Y.S.3d 270, 272 (App. Div. 2019) (“We apply New York, not Swiss, law, to our analysis of whether the Swiss court had personal jurisdiction over defendant”). Bases for personal jurisdiction that New York courts deem sufficient include personal service of process, voluntary appearance, consent, domicile, the conduct of business activities in the foreign jurisdiction, and the commission of a tortious act within the foreign jurisdiction. See Id. (“Notwithstanding defendant’s claim that service on his attorney in Israel of pleadings in the Swiss proceeding was inadequate because he did not reside in Israel at the time … the attorney appeared in the proceeding … defendant had notice of the claims against him sufficient to satisfy due process”).

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Recognition must also be denied if the foreign court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying action – ie, if the court lacked the authority to hear the case before it. See CPLR Section 5304(a)(3). Courts assess subject matter jurisdiction with reference to the law of the foreign jurisdiction. Wimmer Can., Inc. v Abele Tractor & Equip. Co., 750 N.Y.S.2d 331, 334 (App. Div. 2002) (crediting affidavit of Canadian counsel “establishing that, under the laws of Canada, the Canadian court had subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s action”).

Discretionary Grounds for Non-Recognition

In addition to the mandatory grounds, Article 53 enumerates several permissive grounds upon which a court may decline to recognise a foreign judgment. These grounds are discretionary and their application will generally turn on the specific procedural history.

Inadequate notice

A court may refuse recognition if the party against whom the foreign judgment was entered did not receive notice of the foreign proceeding in sufficient time to permit a defence. See CPLR Section 5304(b)(1); Tianzhu Coal Co., Ltd. Under Yaojie Coal & Elec. Grp. v Ma Ju, No 620508/2023, 2024 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5172, at *20 (Sup. Ct. 12 Aug. 2024) (defendant’s “claim that he lacked sufficient notice is contradicted by his participation in the legal proceedings brought before the Intermediate Court and, on appeal, before the High Court”); Batbrothers LLC v Paushok, No 653787/2017, 2018 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 5720, at *14 (Sup. Ct. 28 Nov. 2018) (rejecting the argument that the defendant did not receive proper notice of the Russian proceeding).

Fraud

Recognition may be denied where the judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate opportunity to present its case. See CPLR Section 5304(b)(2). “This affirmative defence requires a showing of extrinsic fraud, which is fraud that has deprived a party of the opportunity to make a full and fair defence”. Shanghai Yongrun Inv. Mgt. Co. Ltd. v Kashi Galaxy Venture Capital Co., Ltd., 242 N.Y.S.3d 647, 647–48 (App. Div. 2025) (mem.) (internal citations omitted). Extrinsic fraud could be found where the plaintiff “deliberately had the initiating process served on the defendant at the wrong address”, intentionally misled the defendant about the “time and place of the hearing”, or “obtained a default judgment against the defendant based on a forged confession of judgment”. See Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, Section 4 CMT 7 (Unif. L. Comm’n 2005) (“2005 Act Commentary”); see also Shanghai Yongrun Inv. Mgt. Co. Ltd., 242 N.Y.S.3d at 647–48 (lower court erred in dismissing fraud defence to recognition of Chinese judgment where judgment debtor was threatened with detention and could not raise coercion defence in Chinese proceeding for fear of retaliation).

Public policy

A court may refuse recognition if the cause of action or the judgment itself is repugnant to New York public policy. See CPLR Section 5304(b)(3). This defence is subject to a very high threshold; even significant differences in legal rules or procedures will not generally be sufficient. Rather, the foreign judgment must be fundamentally offensive to New York’s “sense of justice”. See Ackermann v Levine, 788 F.2d 830, 841 (2d Cir. 1986) (enforcing German judgment over public policy objections, and noting that “the standard is high, and infrequently met”). “In the classic formulation, a judgment that tends clearly to undermine the public interest, the public confidence in the administration of the law, or security for individual rights of personal liberty or of private property is against public policy”. Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).

For example, prior to the enactment of the SPEECH Act, discussed higher up, courts commonly declined recognition of foreign defamation judgments on public policy grounds. See, for example, Bachchan v India Abroad Publications Inc., 585 N.Y.S.2d 661, 665 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (refusing to recognise an English libel judgment on the ground that English defamation law lacked the protections for speech and press guaranteed by the U.S. and New York Constitutions).

Conflict with another judgment

A court may decline recognition if the foreign judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment, whether foreign or domestic. See CPLR Section 5304(b)(4). The conflicting-judgment defence requires that the two judgments be genuinely irreconcilable, ie that compliance with one would necessarily preclude compliance with the other. When the foreign judgment conflicts with a prior U.S. judgment between the same parties on the same course of action, non-recognition is appropriate because the U.S. judgment is presumptively entitled to full faith and credit. See Byblos Bank Eur., S.A. v Sekerbank Turk Anonym Syrketi, 10 N.Y.3d 243, 248–49 (2008) (court properly exercised discretion to deny recognition of Belgian judgment that disregarded – and conflicted with – previously-rendered Turkish judgment); Thai-Lao Lignite (Thail.) Co. v Gov’t of the Lao People’s Democratic Rep., 864 F.3d 172, 181 (2d Cir. 2017) (the district court’s denial of recognition was appropriate because English judgment enforcing arbitral award conflicted with Malaysian judgment annulling award).

Violation of a forum-selection clause

Recognition may be denied where the proceeding in the foreign court was conducted in violation of a binding forum-selection clause. See CPLR Section 5304(b)(5). This ground reflects a strong policy favouring the enforcement of contractual forum-selection clauses. See Hook v Casa Sys., Inc., No 654548/2019, 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 87810, at *7 (Sup. Ct. 15 Sep. 2021) (emphasising New York’s strong policy favouring forum-selection clauses). To determine the validity of a forum-selection clause, New York state courts generally apply New York law, and federal courts sitting in New York apply federal law. When it comes to the interpretation of forum-selection clauses, New York courts apply the law chosen by the parties in their contract. See, for example, Berkley Assur. Co. v MacDonald-Miller Facility Sols., Inc., No 19-cv-7267, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217761, at *11–12 (S.D.N.Y. 16 Dec. 2019); USA-India Export-Import, Inc. v Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., No 53047/2014, 2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 50091(U), at *11 (Sup. Ct. 30 Jan. 2015).

Serious inconvenience of the foreign forum

Under Article 53, a court may also decline recognition of a foreign judgment if the issuing court was a “seriously inconvenient” forum for the trial of the action. See CPLR Section 5304(b)(6). This ground only applies in cases where personal jurisdiction was “based solely on personal service”. Id. It mirrors the domestic doctrine of forum non conveniens, and applies “when the forum court believes the original action should have been dismissed by the court in the foreign country on grounds of forum non conveniens”. 2005 Act Commentary, Section 4 CMT. 10.

Doubt as to the integrity of the rendering court

A court may refuse recognition if the foreign judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering court with respect to the specific judgment at issue. See CPLR Section 5304(b)(7). This ground was introduced by the 2005 Act (and adopted by New York in 2021). It was added to the statute to address concerns about corruption and bias in the specific underlying proceeding – as distinct from the systemic due process issues that courts consider under the mandatory “lack of impartial tribunals” ground. See Trejos Hermanos Sucesores S.A. v Verizon Commc’ns Inc., No 1:21-cv-08928, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7021, *38 (S.D.N.Y. 12 Jan. 2024) (analysing allegations regarding lack of integrity in underlying Costa Rican proceedings).

Procedure for Seeking Recognition and Enforcement

Initiating the recognition proceeding

In New York, a judgment creditor typically seeks recognition by filing an original action. In other words, the judgment creditor commences a new lawsuit seeking a declaration that the foreign judgment is entitled to recognition and requesting that the court enter a domestic judgment in the amount specified in the foreign judgment. Article 53 also permits recognition to be raised as a counterclaim, cross-claim, or affirmative defence if an action to recognise the judgment is already pending. See CPLR Section 5303(b), (c). 

Choosing the right forum

Procedure for seeking recognition

In New York, a judgment creditor seeking recognition of a foreign judgment typically files an action in a New York state court (or, if diversity of citizenship or another basis for federal jurisdiction exists, a federal court) seeking recognition of the judgment. Under the Erie doctrine, a federal court sitting in diversity applies the judgment-recognition statute of the state in which it sits. Accordingly, a judgment creditor who brings a recognition action in New York federal court would still seek recognition under Article 53. See Erie R.R. Co. v Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938); Banca Di Credito Cooperativo di Civitanova Marche e Montecosaro Soc. Cooperativa v Small, No 18-cv-11399, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220066, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. 19 Dec. 2019) (“In this diversity action, the law governing the recognition of foreign judgments is the law of the forum state of New York”) (internal citation omitted).

Jurisdiction over judgment debtor

New York courts do not generally require personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor or its property in a recognition action, unless the judgment debtor raises “colourable” and “nonfrivolous” statutory grounds for nonrecognition. See Lenchyshyn v Pelko Elec., Inc., 723 N.Y.S.2d 285, 291 (App. Div. 2001) (“Considerations of logic, fairness, and practicality dictate that a judgment creditor be permitted to obtain recognition and enforcement of a foreign country money judgment without any showing that the judgment debtor is subject to personal jurisdiction in New York”); Abu Dhabi Com. Bank PJSC v Saad Trading, Contracting & Fin. Servs. Co., 986 N.Y.S.2d 454, 456–57 (App. Div. 2014) (Article 53 does not require jurisdiction over judgment debtor or their property); but see AlbaniaBEG Ambient Sh.p.k. v Enel S.p.A., 73 N.Y.S.3d 1, (App. Div. 2018) (describing that, where a judgment debtor raises “colourable” and “nonfrivolous” statutory grounds for nonrecognition, “there must be either an in personam or an in rem jurisdictional basis for maintaining the recognition and enforcement proceeding... in New York”).

Strategic considerations

In determining whether to bring a judgment-recognition action in New York, a judgment creditor should consider whether the judgment debtor has assets in New York. The effect of having a judgment recognised in New York is that (as explained below) it is domesticated in New York, so the assets within New York can then be pursued. Accordingly, there will be less reason to have a foreign judgment domesticated in New York if the judgment debtor does not have assets here.

Burden of proof

Under Article 53, the party seeking recognition bears the initial burden of establishing that the judgment is entitled to recognition (ie, that the threshold requirements discussed above have been satisfied, in accordance with Section 3c of the 2005 Act).

The burden then shifts to the party opposing recognition to establish a ground for non-recognition. See CPLR Section 5304(c); Bridgeway Corp. v Citibank, 45 F. Supp. 2d 276, 286 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), aff’d, 201 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2000). If the party resisting recognition establishes that the judgment is for defamation, then the party seeking recognition bears the burden of establishing that the issuing jurisdiction provides adequate protections for freedom of speech and the press. See CPLR Section 5304(c).

Statute of limitations

An action to recognise a foreign judgment must be commenced within the earlier of: (i) the time during which the judgment is effective in the foreign country; or (ii) 20 years from the date the judgment became effective. CPLR Section 5303(d). 

Post-Recognition Enforcement

Domestic judgment equivalence

Once a foreign judgment is recognised by a New York court, it is “domesticated”, meaning that it is treated as equivalent to a domestic judgment of the recognising court. Abu Dhabi Com. Bank PJSC v Saad Trading, 986 N.Y.S.2d at 456–57. The judgment creditor may then deploy all available state-law enforcement mechanisms to satisfy the judgment.

Enforcement mechanisms

In New York, the available enforcement mechanisms include a writ of execution (a court order that directs a law enforcement officer to seize a judgment debtor’s property and sell it to satisfy a money judgment), garnishment of bank accounts and wages, and a judgment lien on real property. Judgment creditors may also pursue pre-judgment attachment and may use post-judgment discovery mechanisms, including subpoenas and depositions directed at third parties with knowledge of the debtor’s assets and their location.

Multi-state enforcement

A domesticated foreign judgment is entitled to full faith and credit under Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. To enforce it in another state, the judgment creditor must “domesticate” it in that state under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (UEFJA) – a streamlined procedure that involves filing the judgment in court with notice to the judgment debtor, who may then object, but only on narrow procedural grounds. CPLR, Article 54; Baker v Gen. Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222, 233 (1998) (“[T]he full faith and credit obligation is exacting. A final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter and persons governed by the judgment, qualifies for recognition throughout the land”).

Conclusion

New York offers a well-developed and commercially sophisticated forum for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Once Article 53’s threshold requirements are satisfied, it is left to the judgment debtor to establish any grounds for non-recognition – and the threshold for that showing is high. Once recognised, the foreign judgment is treated as fully equivalent to a domestic judgment, and the judgment debtor may deploy all the powerful enforcement mechanisms available under New York law.