By 
A bank in the United Arab Emirates wins a $40 million judgment against a Saudi limited partnership in an English court. Years later, the bank’s counsel learns that the partnership has assets and accounts in New York. The bank’s general counsel asks the obvious question: which treaty governs enforcement, and how fast can we move? The honest answer is that no treaty governs enforcement, the United States is not a party to any multilateral instrument that would. The team at Warner & Scheuerman handles these matters under New York’s domestic statutory framework, which is more useful than the missing treaty and less well understood by foreign counsel than it should be.
The framework is CPLR Article 53, the Uniform Foreign Country Money-Judgments Recognition Act, which codifies the common law doctrine of comity into a workable procedure for converting an international judgment into a New York judgment.
Why There Is No Treaty Lifeline
The 1958 New York Convention provides reciprocal recognition for arbitral awards and is widely adopted. There is no equivalent multilateral treaty in force for the United States covering court judgments.
The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention, formally the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, would be the closest analog. The United States signed the Convention on March 2, 2022 but has not ratified it. The 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention, often described as the sister treaty, has also been signed but not ratified by the United States. Without ratification, neither has any operative effect in New York courts.
The Convention is in force as of 2024 and 2025 between the European Union (excluding Denmark), the United Kingdom, Ukraine, and Uruguay, with additional ratifications likely in the coming years. Until the United States ratifies, a creditor holding a German, French, English, Singaporean, or Saudi judgment cannot point to any treaty obligation that requires a New York court to recognize it.
That absence is what makes Article 53 the practical instrument. New York’s recognition framework is among the most creditor-friendly in the country, and most international judgments that would qualify under the Hague Judgments Convention also qualify under Article 53.
What CPLR Article 53 Does
Article 53 governs recognition of money judgments rendered by courts of foreign countries. CPLR 5301(a) defines “foreign country” as any government other than the United States, its states, territories, or any other government whose judgments are subject to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The 2021 amendments replaced the older “foreign state” terminology with “foreign country” precisely to eliminate confusion between Article 53 (international) and Article 54 (sister-state).
CPLR 5302 limits Article 53’s scope. The statute does not apply to judgments for taxes, fines, penalties, or domestic relations matters (divorce, support, maintenance). Money judgments in commercial and civil disputes are the core territory.
CPLR 5303 provides that a qualifying foreign country judgment is conclusive between the parties to the extent it grants or denies recovery of a sum of money, except where a ground for non-recognition under CPLR 5304 applies. Recognition is sought either by an action on the judgment, a motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint under CPLR 3213, or by counterclaim, cross-claim, or affirmative defense in a pending action.
The First Department’s decision in Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v. Saad Trading, Contracting and Financial Services Co., 117 A.D.3d 609 (1st Dep’t 2014), affirmed domestication of a $40 million English judgment under Article 53 against a Saudi limited partnership. The court’s reasoning was direct: a foreign country judgment is “conclusive between the parties” absent a CPLR 5304 ground. The debtor’s argument that New York was an inconvenient forum failed because, as the court put it, “the merits were decided in England” and there was nothing left to defend on the merits.
The 2021 Amendments and What Changed
The 2021 amendments to Article 53 brought New York in line with the 2005 update to the Uniform Act, which had been adopted by more than two dozen states before New York acted. The substantive changes are worth knowing.
Burdens of proof are now codified. Under CPLR 5302(c), the party seeking recognition must establish that Article 53 applies to the foreign judgment. Under CPLR 5304(c), the party resisting recognition must establish that a ground for non-recognition exists. Earlier case law had split on this allocation; the 2021 amendments settle it.
A 20-year statute of limitations is now explicit in CPLR 5303(d). An action to recognize a foreign country judgment must be commenced within the earlier of (a) the period during which the judgment remains effective in the rendering country, or (b) 20 years from the judgment’s original effective date. Earlier practice had relied on New York’s general 20-year clock by analogy.
A new mandatory ground for non-recognition was added under CPLR 5304(a)(3) for foreign court lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Two new discretionary grounds were added under CPLR 5304(b)(7) and (b)(8) for substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering courts and for specific-proceeding due process problems.
The Mandatory and Discretionary Grounds for Non-Recognition
CPLR 5304(a) lists three mandatory grounds. The court must refuse recognition if the foreign judicial system did not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with due process, if the foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or if the foreign court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
CPLR 5304(b) provides discretionary grounds, which a court may apply but is not required to. These include lack of timely notice to the defendant, judgments obtained by fraud, public policy violations of New York, conflict with another final judgment, breach of a forum-selection agreement, the seriously-inconvenient-forum doctrine for personal-service-only jurisdiction, integrity-of-courts concerns, due-process problems in the specific proceeding, and the SPEECH Act / Libel Terrorism Protection Act provisions for defamation cases.
The grounds are deliberately narrow. The principal protection for the debtor is at the front end: was there a fair tribunal, did it have proper jurisdiction, was due process observed. New York courts do not relitigate the merits of the underlying dispute.
How Article 53 Differs from Article 54 (and Why That Matters)
The single most useful difference between Article 53 and Article 54 is the treatment of default judgments.
Sister-state default judgments are excluded from Article 54’s streamlined procedure under CPLR 5401, which means a creditor must file a plenary action or proceed under CPLR 3213 to enforce them. Foreign country default judgments are not categorically excluded under Article 53. The First Department in John Galliano, S.A. v. Stallion, Inc., 62 A.D.3d 415 (1st Dep’t 2009), affirmed by the Court of Appeals at 15 N.Y.3d 75 (2010), recognized a French default judgment under Article 53. The Fourth Department had reached the same conclusion regarding a Greek judgment in Constandinou v. Constandinou, 265 A.D.2d 890.
That is a meaningful procedural advantage for international creditors. A creditor with a French commercial default judgment can move directly under CPLR 3213 for recognition without the procedural complications that a sister-state default judgment would require.
How Warner & Scheuerman Handles International Judgment Domestications
The firm’s typical international domestication starts with a review of the underlying judgment to confirm Article 53 applicability, including the country of origin, the type of judgment, the parties’ procedural posture, and whether the rendering court’s process satisfied due process by United States standards. The recognition action is filed in New York Supreme Court, typically as a CPLR 3213 motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, with translated and certified copies of the foreign judgment, an affidavit on the rendering jurisdiction’s procedure, and a memorandum addressing any apparent CPLR 5304 issues before the debtor raises them.
Once recognized, the foreign country judgment is treated as a New York money judgment, the 9 percent statutory post-judgment interest applies, the 20-year enforcement clock under CPLR 211(b) starts running in New York, and the full Article 52 enforcement toolkit becomes available. Information subpoenas, restraining notices on New York banks and brokerages, turnover proceedings against third parties holding debtor assets, and where appropriate, fraudulent transfer claims under New York’s Voidable Transactions Act all follow from the recognition order.
If you hold a judgment from a foreign court and the debtor has assets in New York, or you represent international counsel whose client needs to convert a foreign country judgment into a usable enforcement tool here, reach out to Warner & Scheuerman to evaluate the recognition path under CPLR Article 53 and the post-judgment plan that should follow it.
Comments