Flisfeder v. Jardine

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flisfeder v. Jardine

300 A.D.2d 1132, 751 N.Y.S.2d 890

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 2002·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Polito, J.), entered September 18, 2001, that granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated at Supreme Court, Monroe County (Polito, J.). We add only that we reject defendant’s contention that “the cause of action on which the [foreign country] judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state” (CPLR 5304 [b] [4]). CPLR 5304 (b) (4) may not be invoked “unless enforcement [of such judgment] would result in the recognition of a ‘transaction which is inherently vicious, wicked or immoral, and shocking to the prevailing moral sense’ ” (Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d 368, 377, quoting Intercontinental Hotels Corp. [Puerto Rico] v Golden, 15 NY2d 9, 13), and that cannot be said of the judgment at issue here. Present — Hayes, J.P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Gorski, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Polito, J.), entered September 18, 2001, that granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated at Supreme Court, Monroe County (Polito, J.). We add only that we reject defendant’s contention that “the cause of action on which the [foreign country] judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state” (CPLR 5304 [b] [4]). CPLR 5304 (b) (4) may not be invoked “unless enforcement [of such judgment] would result in the recognition of a ‘transaction which is inherently vicious, wicked or immoral, and shocking to the prevailing moral sense’ ” (Greschler v Greschler, 51 NY2d 368, 377, quoting Intercontinental Hotels Corp. [Puerto Rico] v Golden, 15 NY2d 9, 13), and that cannot be said of the judgment at issue here. Present — Hayes, J.P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Gorski, JJ.

Flisfeder v. Jardine, 300 A.D.2d 1132, 751 N.Y.S.2d 890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

300 A.D.2d 1132 (Flisfeder v. Jardine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related