Watts v. Swiss Bank Corp., MEYER-LANARI and E

• Decision Date: 23 November 1965
• Docket Number: MEYER-LANARI and E
• Parties: Sewell S. WATTS, Jr., and I. Manning Parsons, Jr., as Executors of the Estate of Roberts Maccoun Lanari, deceased,Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. SWISS BANK CORPORATION, Defendant. SWISS BANK CORPORATION, Defendant and Interpleading Plaintiff, v. Maria Elenadwin L. Gasperini, Ancillary Administrator with the Will Annexed of the Estate of Aristide Lanari, deceased, Interpleaded Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 667

264 N.Y.S.2d 667

24 A.D.2d 849

Sewell S. WATTS, Jr., and I. Manning Parsons, Jr., as Executors of the Estate of Roberts Maccoun Lanari, deceased,Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. SWISS BANK CORPORATION, Defendant.

SWISS BANK CORPORATION, Defendant and Interpleading Plaintiff, v. Maria Elena MEYER-LANARI and Edwin L. Gasperini, Ancillary

Administrator with the Will Annexed of the Estate

of Aristide Lanari, deceased,

Interpleaded Defendants-Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Nov. 23, 1965.

G. J. Dunworth, New York City, for plaintiffs-respondents.

B. J. Reverdin, New York City, for interpleaded defendants-appellants.

Before BREITEL, J. P., and RABIN, VALENTE, EAGER and STEUER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Order, entered on October 26, unanimously modified, on the law, to delete the provisions dismissing the Fourth and Fifth Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims set forth in the answers of the interpleaded defendants, and to deny the motions insofar as they seek dismissal of said defenses; and order otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements to any party. Special Term properly struck and dismissed the defenses alleging the applicability of the French and Italian law to the joint-tenancy account established here by the foreign domiciliaries with the Swiss Bank Corporation. (See Wyatt v. Fulrath, 16 N.Y.2d 169, 264 N.Y.S.2d 233, 211 N.E.2d 637 (Oct. 21, 1965).) It was, however, improper to strike and dismiss the defenses alleging that the decree of the Court of Extended Jurisdiction of Nice is res judicata of issues involved in this action. Under principles of comity, our courts should give full effect to a judgment rendered by a French court of competent jurisdiction. (See International Firearms Co. v. Kingston Trust Co., 6 N.Y.2d 406, 189 N.Y.S.2d 911, 160 N.E.2d 656; Johnston v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 242 N.Y. 381, 387, 152 N.E. 121, 123, 46 A.L.R. 435; Gould v. Gould, 235 N.Y. 14, 138 N.E. 490.) The questions raised with respect to the ultimate effect of such judgment to resolve issues involved in the present action, depending, inter alia, upon jurisdiction of the foreign court, identity of parties, identity of issues, and finality of the determination, may not be resolved at the pleading stage on the present record. Order filed.