HARRIS SA DE CV v. Grupo Sistemas Integrales De Telecomunicacion SA De CV

• Decision Date: 04 January 2001
• Citation: 279 A.D.2d 263,719 N.Y.S.2d 25
• Parties: HARRIS S.A. DE C.V., Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>GRUPO SISTEMAS INTEGRALES DE TELECOMUNICACION S.A. DE C.V. et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

279 A.D.2d 263

719 N.Y.S.2d 25

HARRIS S.A. DE C.V., Respondent,

v.GRUPO SISTEMAS INTEGRALES DE TELECOMUNICACION S.A. DE C.V. et al., Appellants.

Decided January 4, 2001.

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

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 defendants-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 NY2d 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 to the Mexican foreclosure sale. In this connection, the IAS Court properly found that the specific provisions of Civil Code of Procedure for the Federal District of Mexico article 540 took precedence over the general principles cited by defendants' expert that were not supported by specific code sections or binding precedent. It is undisputed that the judgment entitled plaintiff to foreclose on the security and seek any shortfall from defendants. Defendants' contention that plaintiff waived its right to collect the deficiency at the judicial sale is belied by the record.

In ruling as to the...