Sav. Deposit Ins. Fund of Turk. v. Aksoy

• Decision Date: 29 December 2020
• Docket Number: Index No. 601721/04,12738N,Case No. 2020-02239
• Citation: 134 N.Y.S.3d 722 (Mem),189 A.D.3d 722
• Parties: SAVINGS DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND OF TURKEY (TASARRUF MEDVUATI SIGORTA FONU), Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Erol AKSOY, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

189 A.D.3d 722

134 N.Y.S.3d 722 (Mem)

SAVINGS DEPOSIT INSURANCE FUND OF TURKEY (TASARRUF MEDVUATI SIGORTA FONU), Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.Erol AKSOY, Defendant–Appellant.

12738N

Index No. 601721/04

Case No. 2020-02239

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED: December 29, 2020

Ortoli Rosenstadt, LLP, New York (Marc S. Gottlieb of counsel), for appellant.

Kellner Herlihy Getty & Friedman, LLP, New York (Douglas A. Kellner of counsel), for respondent.

Webber, J.P., Mazzarelli, Gesmer, Moulton, Gonza´lez, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered on or about October 11, 2019, which denied defendant's motion to vacate a judgment, same court (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered July 12, 2005, against defendant in favor of plaintiff, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant contends that the New York judgment, which enforced a Turkish judgment, should be vacated because the Turkish judgment is no longer enforceable in Turkey (see CPLR 5015[a][5] ). Defendant is precluded from challenging the validity and enforceability of the Turkish judgment at the time the New York judgment was entered, because this issue was already decided against him in a proceeding in which he had a full and fair opportunity to litigate. Even assuming that the Turkish judgment subsequently became unenforceable in Turkey due to the passage of time, that did not effect a reversal, modification, or vacatur of the judgment so as to warrant vacatur of the New York judgment. Rather, once the New York judgment was entered, it became a distinct entity with its own statute of limitations and rules of enforceability ( Cadles of Grassy Meadows II, L.L.C. v. Lapidus, 93 A.D.3d 535, 535–536, 940 N.Y.S.2d 263 [1st Dept. 2012] ; see CPLR 211[b] ; Swezey v Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 32650(U), *20–22, 2009 WL 4009121 [Sup. Ct., N.Y. County 2009], revd on other grounds 87 A.D.3d 119, 926 N.Y.S.2d 415 [1st Dept. 2011], affd 19 N.Y.3d 543, 950 N.Y.S.2d 293, 973 N.E.2d 703 [2012] ; Mee v. Sprague, 144 Misc.2d 1057, 1060–1061, 545 N.Y.S.2d 268 [Sup. Ct., Westchester County 1989] ; JSC Foreign Economic Assn. Technostroyexport v International Dev. & Trade Servs., Inc., 295 F. Supp. 2d 366, 374–376 [S.D. N.Y.2003] ).

Because of our disposition of this issue, we need not reach the question of whether the motion to vacate should have been denied as untimely.