Enforcing Foreign Judgments in New York

Someone holds a money judgment from a court in London, Seoul or São Paulo, and the debtor has assets in New York. Before any talk of collection, a New York court has to decide whether to treat the foreign judgment as conclusive at all. The answer comes from Article 53 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, read in the version that applies to the case, with federal law and treaty status checked alongside it.

Sister-state judgments and foreign-country judgments

Start by sorting the judgment. A judgment from another American state carries full faith and credit, the constitutional requirement that state courts respect the judgments of courts in other states^S28, and a federal statute extends the same treatment to authenticated proceedings from every state and territory^S26. New York handles those judgments under Article 54 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules^S21.

A judgment from another country does not get that treatment. Since 2021, Article 53 defines a foreign country as a government other than the United States, its states and territories, or any other government whose judgments New York first assesses under the Full Faith and Credit Clause^S20. A foreign-country money judgment must win recognition under Article 53 before it can be registered and enforced under Article 54 or otherwise^S21.

Where Article 53 came from, and why the version matters

Article 53 began as New York's enactment, in 1970, of the 1962 Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act. A 2008 amendment added a defamation ground, and the rest stayed much the same until 2021^S21. That year Senate Bill S523A rewrote the article to bring it close to the 2005 revision of the uniform act, and the Governor signed it as chapter 127 on 11 June 2021^S21. The new text applies to actions commenced on or after the date it took effect^S20.

This split is the first thing to check in any decision you read. An opinion in an action begun before the change applied the older wording, which did not, among other things, say who bears the burden of proof^S21. Quote the version that governs your case, and say which one it is.

What the amended article covers

The article reaches a foreign judgment only so far as it grants or denies a sum of money and is final, conclusive and enforceable where it was given, even if an appeal is pending there^S20. It does not reach judgments for taxes, fines or penalties, or judgments for divorce, support or maintenance and other domestic relations matters^S20. The party asking for recognition must show that the article applies^S20.

If it applies, a New York court must treat the judgment as conclusive between the parties on the money it awards or denies, unless a ground for refusal in section 5304 or controlling federal law says otherwise^S20. A creditor starting fresh files an action on the judgment or a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. Inside a case already running, recognition can come up by counterclaim, cross-claim or affirmative defense^S20. Subdivision (d) of section 5303 also sets a time limit for bringing a recognition action, measured from when the judgment took effect abroad^S20. Read its exact terms before relying on a date.

Once a court grants recognition, the judgment is conclusive to the same extent as a sister-state judgment and enforceable in the same way as a New York judgment^S20. A stay is available while an appeal abroad is pending or about to be taken^S20.

Grounds for refusal

Section 5304 splits the grounds in two. A New York court may not grant recognition if the judgment came from a system without impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with due process, or if the foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant or jurisdiction over the subject matter^S20. A court need not grant recognition on any of nine other grounds, which run from late notice and fraud through public policy, a conflicting judgment, a forum agreement and an inconvenient forum, to doubt about the integrity of the court that gave the judgment, a proceeding that fell short of due process, and defamation judgments from outside the United States^S20.

The burden sits with the party resisting recognition, with one exception. When that party shows the judgment is for defamation, the party seeking recognition must show that the foreign law protected speech at least as well as the United States and New York constitutions do^S20. A federal statute points the same way: no court in the United States may enforce a foreign defamation judgment unless the foreign law gave speech as much protection as the First Amendment, or the defendant would have been liable in an American court anyway^S25.

Personal jurisdiction has its own list. Section 5305 names six bases that defeat a lack-of-jurisdiction objection, including personal service in the foreign country, a voluntary appearance, a prior agreement to submit, and domicile or a principal place of business there, and it lets New York courts accept other bases too^S20.

Outside the statute: comity

Article 53 does not stop a court from granting recognition to a foreign judgment in a situation the article does not cover^S20. Those cases fall back on comity, the practice of courts respecting other jurisdictions' laws and decisions out of deference rather than obligation^S27. If your judgment orders something other than payment, or falls in an excluded category, comity decisions are where the research continues.

Treaties: the Hague Conventions

The Hague Judgments Convention of 2 July 2019 covers judgments in civil or commercial matters, but not revenue, customs or administrative matters^S23. Between its parties, a court may not review the merits of a judgment and may refuse recognition only on the grounds the Convention lists^S23. It entered into force on 1 September 2023, and the European Union and Uruguay are among its parties. The United States signed it on 2 March 2022, and the status table shows no ratification^S22. As the table stands, the Convention is not the route into a New York court. Check the table again before you write that down, since it changes.

Service abroad is a separate treaty. The United States has been a party to the Hague Service Convention since it entered into force in 1969^S24. Notice is one of the discretionary grounds for refusal in section 5304^S20, so read the record of how the defendant was served in the foreign case early. The status table tells you whether both countries were parties when service was made^S24.

Research steps, in order

1. Sort the judgment. Decide whether it comes from an American state or territory or from a foreign country, because the two take different routes^S21.
2. Fix the version of Article 53. Note when the New York action began and read the matching text. The 2021 wording applies to actions commenced on or after its effective date^S20.
3. Test scope. Check that the judgment is for money, is final and enforceable where given, and falls outside the tax, penalty and domestic relations exclusions^S20.
4. Run the grounds. Work through the mandatory and discretionary grounds in section 5304 and the jurisdiction bases in section 5305, and record the evidence for each^S20.
5. Check federal law and treaties. Apply the federal defamation rule where it fits^S25, and read the Hague status tables on the day you write^S22S24.
6. Read the foreign record in its own language. A translation of the judgment is a working copy. See when a translation is not the law, and find the foreign court's system through the country guides.

Common traps

• Citing a decision on the pre-2021 text as though it applied the current one. The amendments apply to actions commenced on or after their effective date^S20.
• Treating a foreign-country judgment as entitled to full faith and credit. That requirement runs between American states^S28S26.
• Assuming the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention binds the United States. The status table shows a signature and no ratification^S22.
• Forgetting the defamation exception. There the burden on speech protection moves to the party seeking recognition^S20S25.

Related reading on this site

• Researching New York lawWhere the CPLR, the NYCRR and New York decisions are published.
• Researching United States lawThe federal Code and courts, including the statutes cited here.
• Comparative law toolsFor reading the foreign court's system on its own terms.
• When a translation is not the lawWhy the authoritative text of a foreign judgment is the original.

This guide describes how New York's recognition statute is organised and where to read it. It does not say whether any judgment will win recognition or be enforced, and it is not legal advice.

Sources checked 2026-10-22 to 2026-10-23. 9 sources cited on this page.