In today’s BLOG, we will address the enforcement of foreign judgments (i.e., judgments obtained outside the State of New York) in New York.[1]Simply stated, armed with a money judgment, a judgment creditor can employ numerous available procedures to assist in the collection of the outstanding judgment debt. Article 52 of the CPLR (Enforcement of Money Judgments) provides for many enforcement options. Judgments obtained in New York can be enforced immediately.
What happens, however, when a litigant obtains a judgment in another state, but would like to enforce it in New York because the judgment debtor has real property, personal property or bank accounts in New York? The United States Constitution provides that “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” U.S.Const., Art. IV, § 1. The “Full Faith and Credit Clause” “requires each State to recognize and give effect to valid judgments rendered by the courts of its sister States. It serves to alter the status of the several states as independent foreign sovereignties, each free to ignore obligations created under the laws or by the judicial proceedings of the others, and to make them integral parts of a single nation.” V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. 404, 406-07 (2016) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, 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” even if a sister state “disagrees with the reasoning underlying the judgment or deems it to be wrong on the merits.” Id. at 407. However, states are “not required … to afford full faith and credit to a judgment rendered by a court that did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter or the relevant parties.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
While foreign judgments are entitled to full faith and credit in New York, they must first be “domesticated” in New York before they are enforceable. The CPLR provides two methods for domestication. The first method is contained in Article 54 of the CPLR, which codified the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act.[2] Under CPLR 5402(a), to recognize a foreign judgment, a judgment creditor must: (1) obtain an authenticated copy of the foreign judgment and, within 90 days of authentication, file it in the office of any county clerk of New York State; and (2) file an affidavit, stating (i) that the judgment was not obtained by default in appearance or by confession of judgment, (ii) that the judgment is unsatisfied in whole or in part, (iii) that the amount remaining on the judgment is unpaid, (iv) that enforcement of the judgment has not been stayed, and (v) setting forth the name and last known address of the judgment debtor. If the judgment creditor complies with the requirements of CPLR 5402(a), CPLR 5402(b) permits the foreign judgment to be treated “in the same manner as a judgment of the supreme court of this state.” Therefore, a foreign judgment that is filed in accordance with the requirements of CPLR § 5402 will have the same legal effect as a judgment entered in New York and will be “subject to the same procedures, defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating or staying” a New York judgment. CPLR 5402(b). Since CPLR § 5402(a) specifically excludes judgments obtained by default, a foreign judgment creditor must commence a plenary action or move for summary judgment in lieu of complaint to domesticate the foreign judgment. CPLR 5406; Madjar v. Rosa, 83 A.D.3d 1011, 1012-13 (1st Dep’t 2011) (citations omitted).
Against this backdrop, today’s article addresses Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Simms, an opinion rendered on August 6, 2025, by the Appellate Division, Second Department. The abridged and simplified facts of Cadlerock follow. The plaintiff in Cadlerock was a judgment creditor who obtained a money judgment, by default, in North Carolina. Because the judgment was obtained by default, it could not be domesticated by the procedures found in CPLR 5402(a). Accordingly, in 2023, the judgment creditor commenced an action by moving for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213[3] to domesticate, in New York, its North Carolina judgment. The judgment debtor opposed the motion by arguing that there was no personal jurisdiction over him in New York and, therefore, the motion must be denied.[4] The judgment creditor opposed the cross-motion by arguing that “lack of personal jurisdiction in New York was not a cognizable defense to an action seeking to domesticate a judgment from another state.” The motion court, in granting the cross-motion and denying the motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, held that New York lacked personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor. On the judgment creditor’s appeal, the Second Department reversed and answered in the negative, the question presented on appeal – “whether New York must possess personal jurisdiction over the defendant in order for the plaintiff to obtain such recognition and potential enforcement of the judgment in New York.”
After discussing full faith and credit and CPLR Article 54, the Court explained the issue of personal jurisdiction. Among other things, the Court reiterated that the “Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the power of a state court to render a valid personal judgment against a nonresident defendant [and] protects an individual’s liberty interest in not being subject to the binding judgments of a forum with which he has established no meaningful contacts, ties, or relations.” (Citations and internal quotation marks omitted.) The Court also noted that a “judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere. Due process requires that the defendant be given adequate notice of the suit, and be subject to the personal jurisdiction of the court.” (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted.)
There could be no dispute that while “New York would lack jurisdiction to pass upon the merits of the controversy underlying the 2017 North Carolina judgment[, the judgment creditor] is not asking the New York courts to consider the merits of the underlying action, only to recognize the judgment entered by the North Carolina court so as to make it enforceable in New York.”
The Court then held “that New York need not possess personal jurisdiction over the defendant judgment debtor in order to recognize and domesticate a judgment entitled to full faith and credit.” “Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint and denied that branch of the defendant’s cross-motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(8) to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.”
[1] This BLOG has previously addressed the recognition of foreign judgments (see, e.g., [here], [here] and [here]) and some of the introductory points of this article have been adapted from prior articles.
[2] The second method, which is found in Article 53 of the CPLR and relates to the domestication of judgments obtained in foreign countries, is beyond the scope of today’s article.
[3] This BLOG has addressed CPLR 3213 numerous times. To find our numerous BLOG articles related to CPLR 3213, visit the “BLOG” tile on our website and enter “3213” in the “search” box.
[4] This BLOG has addressed personal jurisdiction numerous times. To find our numerous BLOG articles related to Personal jurisdiction, visit the “BLOG” tile on our website and enter “personal jurisdiction” in the “search” box.
