Harris S.A. De C.V. v. Grupo Sistemas Integrales

• Decision Date: 04 January 2001
• Citation: 719 N.Y.S.2d 25,279 A.D.2d 263
• Parties: (A.D.1 Dept. 2001) Harris S.A. De C.V., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Grupo Sistemas Integrales De Telecomunicacion S.A. De C.V. et al., Defendants-Appellants. 2828 : FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 25

719 N.Y.S.2d 25 (A.D.1 Dept. 2001)

Harris S.A. De C.V., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Grupo Sistemas Integrales De Telecomunicacion S.A. De C.V. et al., Defendants-Appellants.

2828

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

January 4, 2001

Clifton S. Elgarten, for Plaintiff-Respondent.

John D'Ercole, for Defendants-Appellants.

Williams, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered March 1, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in this action pursuant to CPLR article 53, converting a foreign judgment to a judgment of execution against the corporate defendants for the amount of their assets in New York, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS court properly recognized and directed enforcement in New York of the underlying money judgment obtained by plaintiff in Mexico. There is no question that the subject judgment is valid and that the underlying dispute, at least with respect to defendant-appellants' liability, was fully and fairly litigated in Mexico where all of the parties resided. Defendants have made no showing of fraud in the procuring of the judgment. Nor would enforcement of the judgment upon assets of the corporate defendants located in this jurisdiction be offensive to public policy in this State. The circumstance that, pursuant to Mexican law, the judgment permitted the sale of the collateral securing payment of defendants' debt to plaintiff, at only two-thirds of its judicially assessed value in partial satisfaction of the debt, does not render the judgment, to the extent that it remains unsatisfied in the aftermath of the Mexican foreclosure proceedings, offensive to New York's public policy. While it is true that New York affords greater protection than Mexico to debtors whose property is foreclosed, it does not follow that the Mexican policies vindicated by enforcement of the subject judgment in New York conflict so fundamentally with New York's public policy as to justify a denial of comity (see, Greschler v Greschler, 51 N.Y.2d 368).

Contrary to defendants' arguments, plaintiff was not required either under the parties' underlying contract or governing Mexican law to obtain a deficiency judgment within the Mexican foreclosure action in order to enforce its money judgment, to the extent that such judgment remained unsatisfied subsequent...