(a) A court of this state may not recognize a foreign country judgment if: 1. the judgment was rendered under a judicial system that does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law; 2. the foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant; or 3. the foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.
§ 5304.Grounds for non-recognition.
Article 53. Recognition of Foreign Country Money Judgments · Last amended 2021 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 5304 lists mandatory grounds (an unfair judicial system, lack of personal or subject-matter jurisdiction) that bar recognizing a foreign country money judgment, plus discretionary grounds like notice problems, fraud, public-policy conflicts, and inadequate protection for free speech in defamation cases.
Full Text of CPLR 5304
(b) A court of this state need not recognize a foreign country judgment if: 1. the defendant in the proceeding in the foreign court did not receive notice of the proceeding in sufficient time to enable the defendant to defend; 2. the judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate opportunity to present its case; 3. the judgment or the cause of action on which the judgment is based is repugnant to the public policy of this state or of the United States; 4. the judgment conflicts with another final and conclusive judgment; 5. the proceeding in the foreign court was contrary to an agreement between the parties under which the dispute in question was to be determined otherwise than by a proceeding in that court; 6. in the case of jurisdiction based only on personal service, the foreign court was a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action; 7. the judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the integrity of the rendering courts with respect to the judgment; 8. the specific proceeding in the foreign court leading to the judgment was not compatible with the requirements of due process of law; or 9. the cause of action resulted in a defamation judgment obtained in a jurisdiction outside the United States, unless the court before which the matter is brought sitting in this state first determines that the defamation law applied in the foreign court’s adjudication provided at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press in that case as would be provided by both the United States and New York constitutions.
(c) A party resisting recognition of a foreign country judgment has the burden of establishing that a ground for non-recognition stated in subdivision (a) or (b) of this section exists; provided that the party seeking recognition shall bear the burden of establishing the adequate protections for freedom of speech and press required as a condition to recognition under paragraph nine of subdivision (b) of this section if the party resisting recognition establishes that the judgment is for defamation.
Plain-English Summary
Recognizing a foreign judgment isn't unconditional, and this section is where the conditions live. It splits into two tiers. Subdivision (a) lists grounds that bar recognition outright: the judgment came out of a judicial system that doesn't provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with due process, the foreign court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, or it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. Any one of those defeats recognition regardless of how the individual case went.
Subdivision (b) lists nine grounds a New York court may rely on, but doesn't have to. These focus on how the particular case unfolded: the defendant didn't get timely notice of the proceeding; the judgment was procured by fraud that deprived the losing party of a fair chance to defend; the judgment or the underlying claim is repugnant to New York or federal public policy; it conflicts with another final judgment; the foreign proceeding broke an agreement about where disputes would be resolved; the forum was seriously inconvenient where jurisdiction rested only on personal service; the circumstances raise real doubt about the rendering court's integrity; the specific proceeding fell short of due process even if the system generally provides it; or the judgment awards damages for defamation.
That last ground gets its own rule. New York added it in 2008 to answer “libel tourism” — foreign defamation suits aimed at recovering damages a plaintiff couldn't win under American speech protections. A defamation judgment gets recognition only if the court first finds that the foreign defamation law applied gave at least as much protection for freedom of speech and press as both the U.S. and New York constitutions provide.
Burdens of proof track the two tiers differently. A party resisting recognition generally has to establish that a ground in subdivision (a) or (b) exists. But once that party shows the judgment is for defamation, the burden flips: the party seeking recognition then has to establish the foreign law gave adequate speech protection.
Frequently Asked Questions
Will a New York court recognize a foreign country's money judgment?
Generally yes, unless it falls within one of the mandatory or discretionary grounds for non-recognition CPLR 5304 lists.
What's the difference between mandatory and discretionary grounds for non-recognition?
Under subdivision (a), the court may not recognize the judgment if a ground applies. Under subdivision (b), the court need not recognize it — the grounds are available but not required to defeat recognition.
Can a New York court refuse to recognize a foreign libel judgment?
Yes, unless the court first finds that the foreign defamation law applied gave at least as much protection for speech and press as the U.S. and New York constitutions.
Does lack of notice to the defendant defeat recognition of a foreign judgment?
It can. Insufficient notice to allow the defendant to defend is one of the discretionary grounds for non-recognition under subdivision (b).
Who has the burden of proving a ground for non-recognition exists?
Generally the party resisting recognition, except on the defamation speech-protection issue, where the party seeking recognition bears that burden once defamation is shown.
Can a foreign judgment be denied recognition because the foreign court was an inconvenient forum?
Only when jurisdiction rested solely on personal service and the foreign forum was seriously inconvenient for trying the case.
Amendment History
Add, L 1970, ch 981, § 1; amd, L 2008, ch 66, § 2, eff April 28, 2008; L 2021, ch 127, § 5, effective June 11, 2021.
Source & verification. Provision text, History, and Advisory
Committee Notes are reproduced verbatim from the Consolidated Laws of New York.
Last verified July 21, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: grounds for not recognizing foreign judgment New Yorkforeign libel judgment recognition New Yorkpersonal jurisdiction foreign judgment New Yorkdue process foreign court judgmentNew York libel tourism law