Cross-border Enforcement Guideline - New York State, USA
2025-09-04
（1）With which jurisdictions does New York State have reciprocal arrangements for enforcement of civil and commercial judgments?
Under New York law, the recognition and enforcement of foreign country civil or commercial money judgments is governed by Article 53 of the CPLR (New York’s version of the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgment Recognition Act). Article 53 itself does not impose a reciprocity requirement; instead, it sets out statutory grounds for recognition and for refusal (such as lack of jurisdiction, fraud, or procedures incompatible with due process). Reciprocity arises from the broader doctrine of international comity, which underlies New York’s policy of being a generous forum for recognition. As the Court of Appeals explained in CIBC Mellon Trust Co. v. Mora Hotel Corp. N.V., New York enforces foreign judgments not because it is compelled to, but because doing so encourages other countries to reciprocate and honor New York judgments in return. In the instant case, the New York Court of Appeals confirmed that New York has traditionally been a generous forum for recognizing foreign judgments, precisely to encourage reciprocity abroad. The Court explained that it is not necessary for a judgment creditor to prove that foreign courts routinely enforce New York judgments; rather, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the foreign jurisdiction is, in principle, open to recognizing and enforcing judgments from New York courts. The inquiry is practical and fact-specific: the question is whether the foreign system, viewed as a whole, comports with basic fairness and affords reciprocal treatment in substance. Thus, New York courts do not require proof that foreign courts routinely enforce New York judgments. It is sufficient that the foreign system, in principle, provides impartial tribunals and recognizes the possibility of enforcement, ensuring fairness and maintaining the expectation of reciprocal treatment.
In practice, New York courts have recognized money judgments from a variety of countries and territories, including Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong. New York Courts have noted that courts in those jurisdictions generally provide impartial tribunals and procedures compatible with due process, and their legal systems allow, in principle, for the recognition of U.S. civil and commercial judgments. This mutual openness reflects the comity-based rationale often described in terms of reciprocity, even though reciprocity is not a statutory requirement under New York’s Recognition Act. By contrast, if a jurisdiction categorically refuses to recognize U.S. judgments or if its judicial system lacks basic due-process safeguards, New York courts may decline recognition under CPLR Article 53.
It should be emphasized that under New York Law, reciprocity is not itself a statutory requirement but rather part of the comity rationale for New York’s liberal enforcement policy. Even when reciprocity is established and a foreign jurisdiction’s legal system is regarded as open, impartial, and compatible with due process, a foreign judgment must still be presented to a New York court for recognition or enforcement. To succeed, the judgment must meet the statutory criteria under CPLR Article 53—such as being final, conclusive, and enforceable where rendered—and it must not fall within any of the defenses provided by the statute, including contravention of New York public policy.
（2）If there is no reciprocal arrangement, is it still possible to enforce a foreign civil and commercial judgment?
In New York State, even in the absence of a formal reciprocity arrangement between New York and a foreign jurisdiction, foreign civil and commercial judgments may nevertheless be recognized and enforced in certain circumstances. New York courts do not treat the existence of a treaty or an explicit reciprocity agreement as the sole criterion; instead they apply a substantive analytical framework centered on fairness and due process.
Under New York case law, a court may recognize a foreign judgment despite a foreign jurisdiction’s general reluctance to recognize U.S. judgments by examining whether the foreign tribunal’s judicial system provided protections comparable to those in the United States. Relevant considerations include whether the foreign court afforded due process, whether it had proper jurisdiction, and whether the proceedings and the resulting judgment comported with procedural and substantive fairness. So long as the foreign judgment was not procured by fraud, did not deprive the parties of a full opportunity to be heard, and does not contravene New York’s fundamental public policy, New York courts may grant recognition and enforcement.
Moreover, New York courts have emphasized in some decisions that lack of reciprocity is not an automatic bar to recognition. For example, in cases involving jurisdictions such as China or Russia—where recognition of foreign judgments may face high hurdles—New York courts have nonetheless conducted independent, case-specific reviews of procedural justice and substantive fairness before deciding whether to enforce the judgment.
In short, while reciprocity provides part of the policy rationale for New York’s liberal enforcement of foreign judgments, it is not a statutory requirement. A foreign judgment that satisfies basic procedural fairness, rests on a valid jurisdictional basis, and does not contravene New York public policy can be recognized and enforced in New York even absent a formal reciprocity arrangement.
（3）Does New York State give effect to the New York Convention?
Yes, New York State gives effect to this Convention. The United States is signatory to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, commonly known as the New York Convention.
（4）What is the approximate time required to recognize and enforce a foreign civil and commercial judgment or to petition to confirm a foreign arbitration award and enforce if unopposed?
(1) In New York State, absent objections or substantial defenses, the time required for the registration and enforcement of foreign civil or commercial judgments is generally depending on the following factors:
(a) Court filing efficiency and scheduling: Courts in different jurisdictions vary in case management and docket practices. For instance, the New York County (Manhattan) Civil Court typically has a heavier caseload, which may lead to slightly slower scheduling, whereas some other counties may process cases more expeditiously.
(b) Smoothness of proceedings: If the judgment debtor does not raise objections to the foreign judgment (e.g., challenging the court’s jurisdiction, alleging violation of public policy, or claiming the judgment has already been satisfied), the process will enter an expedited track. In such cases, the court may issue a decision based on written submissions without requiring oral hearings, thereby saving significant time.
(c) Completion of service of process: Even where there are no objections, the applicant is still required to prove that the documents related to the enforcement application have been served on the judgment debtor in accordance with law. If the judgment debtor is located overseas, service must be effected pursuant to the Hague Service Convention or the New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), which may result in additional time delays.
(d) Document translation and authentication: Where the original foreign judgment is in a language other than English, a qualified English translation must be provided, typically accompanied by an affidavit of translation. In some cases, the court may require authentication or notarization of the judgment by the foreign court, which could also affect the timeline.
(2) In New York State, the processing and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards are generally completed within several months. As a contracting state to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the "New York Convention"), the United States provides the federal legal framework for enforcing foreign arbitral awards pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Applicants need only submit to a federal district court (e.g., the Southern District of New York (SDNY)) a certified copy of the arbitral award, a copy of the arbitration agreement, and any necessary English translations. Upon receipt of these documents, New York courts may accept the application and promptly issue an enforcement order. If the party against whom enforcement is sought is located within the United States, service of process is generally swift; if located abroad, service may need to be effected via the Hague Service Convention, which could result in a delay of 3 to 6 months. When proceedings are smooth, documentation is complete, service is timely, and there are no substantial defenses, New York courts often confirm and enforce the arbitral award within a matter of months, typically without the need for an oral hearing.
（5）What is the approximate time required to recognize and enforce a foreign civil and commercial judgment or to petition to confirm and enforce a foreign arbitration award if opposed?
If a respondent raises objections during the enforcement of a foreign civil or commercial judgment in New York State, the proceeding effectively transitions into adversarial litigation under CPLR Article 53. This can substantially extend the process, as New York courts must evaluate the defenses asserted—such as fraud, lack of jurisdiction, denial of due process, or public policy—and may allow discovery or evidentiary submissions. The overall duration is highly fact-specific and depends on the complexity of the issues, the nature of the defenses, the scope of discovery, and the court’s docket. As a result, the timeline is difficult to predict with precision and can vary significantly from case to case.
Common grounds for objecting to recognize and enforce foreign judgments include, but are not limited to:
1. The foreign court lacked personal or subject-matter jurisdiction over the defendant;
2. The judgment violates fundamental due process principles of the United States or New York State;
3. The judgment was obtained by fraud;
4. The judgment contravenes New York State's significant public policy;
5. The judgment has not yet become final or enforceable in the foreign jurisdiction;
6. The judgment involves punitive damages, tax, administrative, or criminal matters (which are generally unrecognized);
7. The reciprocity conditions for enforcement were not satisfied (though as noted earlier, this is rarely the sole or determinant factor).
Once such defenses are raised, the court will require the parties to submit pleadings, motions, and objections, and may schedule witness statements, expert reports, and documentary evidence. Some cases may also proceed to discovery, including document production, depositions, and witness testimony, further prolonging the litigation.
Additionally, the court may order oral arguments or hearings, particularly in cases involving procedural justice, judicial reciprocity, or conflicts of public policy. Ultimately, New York courts will issue a ruling on whether to recognize the judgment, and the losing party may appeal, further extending the enforcement timeline.
In summary, when objections are raised, enforcing a foreign civil or commercial judgment in New York generally takes at least 6 months. Complex cases may extend to 18 or 24 months or longer, especially those involving high-controversy disputes, cross-border investigations, or novel public policy issues.
Similarly, if a respondent objects to the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in New York State, the registration and enforcement process will shift to adversarial proceedings, significantly delaying the timeline. The duration typically ranges from 6 months to 2 years, depending on the complexity of the objections, the completeness of evidence submitted, court processing speed, and whether appeals or other procedural steps are involved.
Under Article V of the New York Convention and Section 207 of the Federal Arbitration Act, respondents may raise limited grounds for objection, such as: the arbitration agreement was invalid; the arbitration proceedings did not comply with legal requirements; the party was not given proper notice; the award exceeded the arbitration’s scope; or the arbitration process or award conflicts with U.S. public policy. Upon raising such objections, the court will require the parties to file written submissions and relevant evidence, and may schedule hearings or trials on procedural motions. These proceedings—including fact-finding, legal argumentation, and expert testimony on foreign law—can substantially protract the timeline.
Furthermore, if the objection involves a pending challenge or annulment of the award in the seat of arbitration, U.S. courts often exercise discretion to stay enforcement proceedings until the foreign court resolves the matter, which is a common source of delay. If the case proceeds to appeal, the timeline may extend to 2 years or more. Consequently, when substantive objections are raised, the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in New York is marked by significant uncertainty and flexibility, accompanied by corresponding legal costs and procedural burdens.
（6）What kind of fees may be paid to recognize and enforce a foreign civil and commercial judgment or the cost of petitioning to confirm and enforce a foreign arbitration award?
The costs typically include court fees, attorney fees, document translation and authentication expenses, service of process costs, and other administrative expenditures. The primary cost components and their estimated ranges are outlined below:
In the situation where there is no objection, the total enforcement costs depend on the level of attorney involvement, the complexity of document processing, and whether cross-border procedures are required for service. If unopposed, proceedings are unobstructed and documentation is complete, such cases can often be resolved at a lower cost .
If objections are raised to the registration and enforcement of a foreign civil or commercial judgment or a foreign arbitral award, the enforcement proceedings will transition to an adversarial litigation phase, significantly increasing the associated costs. The specific expenses vary depending on the case’s complexity, the nature of the objections, the workload required for evidence submission and rebuttal, and whether hearings, expert testimony, or appellate proceedings are involved.
（7）Are there any unusual difficulties in enforcing a foreign civil and commercial judgment or in confirming and enforcing a foreign arbitration award?
While the enforcement of foreign civil or commercial judgments in New York State is legally feasible, practical implementation may still encounter significant challenges. These difficulties are particularly pronounced where the judgment was obtained by default and the defendant was not properly served. More broadly, the challenges tend to arise in procedural, evidentiary, cross-border enforcement coordination, and respondent defense aspects, as outlined below:
First, complex service of process procedures. If the judgment debtor is located abroad, the applicant must effect cross-border service in accordance with the Hague Service Convention or other international legal requirements. The specific practices, timelines, and documentation requirements for implementing the Hague Convention vary significantly across countries. In some cases, service may take months, or even be refused due to political or legal system incompatibilities.
Second, stringent requirements regarding the content and form of foreign judgments. New York courts mandate that foreign judgments must be "final and conclusive money judgments" with enforceability. Judgments involving injunctions, specific performance, punitive damages, tax or criminal matters are likely to be denied recognition. Additionally, applicants must provide a certified English translation and proof that the judgment has become final and enforceable in the foreign jurisdiction with no pending appeals.
Third, uncertainty in public policy defenses. Even if a judgment appears legally valid, the judgment debtor may argue that its content or proceedings violate New York State’s "significant public policy," such as lack of fair trial opportunities, infringement on freedom of speech, or breaches of procedural due process. Courts exercise discretion in reviewing such defenses, and this standard can be subjective.
Fourth, challenges in factual determination of "reciprocity" standards. Although New York does not require a formal reciprocal arrangement, New York courts must still assess whether the foreign jurisdiction "substantially" recognizes U.S. judgments. This standard may necessitate submitting evidence of foreign laws, court practices, or even expert testimony, increasing the burden of proof.
Fifth, difficulties in asset enforcement. Even if a foreign judgment is recognized and enforced by a New York court, the applicant must still effectuate recovery through enforcement proceedings (e.g., freezing bank accounts, seizing assets). If the judgment debtor has no identifiable enforceable assets, or if assets are hidden, transferred, held in trust, or registered under third parties’ names, the enforcement process becomes significantly more arduous, potentially requiring separate fraudulent conveyance claims.
Sixth, financial and temporal pressures on parties. As noted, the entire process of application, review, service, and enforcement may span months to over a year, accompanied by high attorney fees, translation costs, and service expenses. This is particularly burdensome for applicants when the respondent raises objections, straining both financial and time resources.
Enforcing foreign arbitral awards in New York State generally benefits from a solid legal foundation, clear procedural rules, and courts’ supportive stance—particularly under the framework of the New York Convention and Chapter 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act, where courts incline to recognize and enforce valid foreign arbitral awards. Nevertheless, practical implementation still faces several special challenges, especially when the judgment debtor raises objections, the arbitration process has flaws, or the case involves significant cross-border elements. Below are key practical difficulties:
First, while the grounds for objection are narrow, they are highly actionable. Under Article V of the New York Convention, respondents may raise limited defenses, such as invalidity of the arbitration agreement, failure to receive proper notice of the arbitration proceedings, the composition of the tribunal or arbitral procedure not conforming to the parties’ agreement, the award exceeding the arbitration’s scope, procedural violations of the lex arbitri (the law governing the arbitration), the award not yet being final or having been set aside, or the award conflicting with U.S. public policy. Although these defenses are legally stringent, in practice—particularly in cases involving foreign legal systems or opaque arbitration procedures—New York courts still must spend considerable time reviewing materials and facts which can significantly delay enforcement.
Second, cases where the foreign seat of arbitration’s court is considering setting aside or staying the award may trigger procedural stays. U.S. courts have discretion to decide whether to stay enforcement, but if foreign court proceedings are ongoing—especially if the seat court has accepted an application to set aside the award—New York courts may opt to await the foreign court’s decision, resulting in interruptions or delays in the enforcement process.
Third, the evidentiary burden to prove the validity of the arbitral award may be substantial. The applicant must provide the original award or a certified copy, a copy of the arbitration agreement, a sworn translation, and supporting documents demonstrating the lawfulness, regularity, and completeness of the arbitration process. In some non-common law jurisdictions or with certain arbitration institutions, inconsistent standards for preparing procedural documents may lead to incomplete records or heightened authentication challenges, increasing the applicant’s costs.
Fourth, uncertainty in public policy defenses. While New York courts generally adopt a narrow interpretation of public policy defenses, recognizing them only in extreme circumstances (e.g., procedural corruption or violations of fundamental fairness), in certain arbitration cases involving restrictions on foreign investment, government regulation, or mandatory laws, courts may still decline enforcement based on U.S. or New York State legal principles.
（8）Which types of foreign civil and commercial judgments can be recognized and enforced in the jurisdiction of New York State?
Within the jurisdiction of New York State, the types of foreign civil or commercial judgments eligible for recognition and enforcement are primarily limited to "monetary judgments that are final, conclusive, and enforceable." Such judgments include monetary awards in cases involving breach of contract, tortious conduct, debt repayment, shareholder disputes, and international trade payments. To qualify, the judgment must have been rendered by a court possessing lawful personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute, and the proceedings must have complied with due process principles, ensuring that the parties received notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Generally, non-monetary judgments lacking enforceable characteristics—such as injunctions, specific performance orders, declaratory judgments; criminal or administrative fine orders; excessively punitive damages awards; and certain family law decrees involving custody or visitation arrangements—are not recognized or enforced in New York. Additionally, even if a judgment does not formally qualify as a "monetary judgment," courts may still enforce it if its substantive effect is to require payment of a specific sum.
（9）What are the practices and channels for investigating the properties of the judgment debtor?
In New York State judicial practice, the key to effectively enforcing foreign civil or commercial judgments or arbitral awards lies in the thorough investigation and identification of the judgment debtor’s assets. New York provides a flexible, proceduralized mechanism for asset investigation, complemented by court-enforced measures, enabling parties seeking to enforce foreign judgments to lawfully locate, secure, and dispose of the judgment debtor’s assets within New York. Attorneys play a central role in this process, focusing on the following key aspects:
First, initiating post-judgment discovery under CPLR Articles 5223 and 5224. Upon obtaining a judgment, the prevailing party (i.e., the judgment creditor) may lawfully commence "post-judgment discovery." This investigation may target the judgment debtor directly or third parties—such as banks, employers, or business partners—who hold, control, or have knowledge of the debtor’s assets. Attorneys, on behalf of the creditor, can use court-issued tools including information subpoenas (written requests for information), depositions (oral examinations), and document subpoenas (commands to produce records) to obtain details about bank accounts, real property registrations, corporate shareholdings, income records, accounts receivable, and other asset-related information.
Second, conducting preliminary investigations using public databases and government registries. Attorneys typically leverage resources such as the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, local court records, the Automated City Register Information System (ACRIS) (New York City’s real property ownership registry), the New York State Department of State’s Division of Corporations (for business registrations), and federal bankruptcy records. These databases help identify real estate, corporate equity, litigious assets, or security interests under the name of a company or individual. Additionally, attorneys may engage private investigators to conduct on-site investigations, commercial credit checks, or online traces to uncover hidden assets or transfer trails.
Third, challenging hidden or fraudulent asset transfers. In cases involving hidden assets, malicious transfers, or artificial asset structures, attorneys may initiate a fraudulent conveyance action to challenge suspicious transactions. They can also seek court orders such as restraining orders (to freeze assets temporarily) or attachment orders (to seize assets) to prevent dissipation of assets.
Fourth, pursuing cross-border enforcement or recognition. If the judgment debtor holds assets abroad but has no readily enforceable assets in New York, attorneys may first obtain a recognition judgment in New York confirming the foreign judgment, then seek enforcement in the relevant foreign jurisdiction. Alternatively, they may collaborate with other jurisdictions through cross-border cooperation mechanisms to facilitate asset investigation.
（10）What is the framework and standard for attorneys' fees for the enforcement of foreign civil and commercial judgments or foreign arbitration awards? Is contingency fee possible?
•Billed hourly;
•May be structured on a contingency fee basis (contingency fee), provided that such arrangements are explicitly set forth in a written agreement.
LIMITATION
（11）What is that limitation period for initiating an enforcement action for a foreign civil and commercial judgement or a foreign arbitration award?
Under New York law, the statute of limitations for bringing an action to enforce a foreign civil or commercial money judgment generally depends on how the claim is framed:
20-Year Limitation (Default Rule under CPLR Article 53): Enforcement of a foreign judgment is governed by CPLR Article 53 (Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgments Recognition Act). Once recognized, a foreign judgment is treated as if it were a New York judgment. Accordingly, under CPLR §211(b), "an action upon a judgment" must be commenced within 20 years from the date the judgment became enforceable. This is the standard rule applied by New York courts (e.g., Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v. Saad Trading, Contracting & Financial Services Co., 117 A.D.3d 609 [1st Dep’t 2014]).
6-Year Limitation (Contractual Theory of Enforcement): In some cases, a foreign judgment creditor may choose to proceed not under Article 53, but by treating the foreign judgment as giving rise to an implied contractual obligation — essentially, that the debtor promised to pay the adjudicated sum. In that scenario, New York courts have applied the 6-year statute of limitations for contract actions under CPLR §213(2). This approach reflects older case law (pre-Article 53), when suing on a foreign judgment was analogized to suing on a contract or debt obligation. While this contractual framing is less common after the enactment of Article 53, the 6-year limit can still apply if a creditor pursues enforcement via a contract-based cause of action rather than under Article 53.
Foreign (Non-U.S.) Arbitral Awards under the New York Convention: Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in New York is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), Chapter 2 (9 U.S.C. §§ 201–208), which incorporates the New York Convention.U.S.C §207 provides that an application for confirmation must be made within 3 years after the award is made. This 3-year period applies specifically to foreign arbitral awards, i.e., those rendered in another Convention state.
ENFORCEMENT
（12）What papers will be needed for the enforcement of a foreign judgement or a foreign arbitration award?
•Official copies of the judgment/arbitral award and notarized documents;
•Certified English translation;
•Application for enforcement and affidavit of attorney support;
•Proof of service on the opposing party and copies of court application materials.
（13）What is the general procedure and methods to enforce a foreign civil and commercial judgement or a foreign arbitration award?
Process: Filing an application for confirmation and enforcement (under CPLR Article 53 or FAA procedures) → Issuance of a court order → Enforcement. Enforcement methods include:
•Levy on bank accounts;
•Wage garnishment;
•Lien or charge on real property;
•Compulsory auction;
•Examination of the judgment debtor;
•Application for a winding-up order (or insolvency proceedings).
（14）How to recover all fees and costs of enforcement?
If the original judgment specifies that costs are recoverable, courts generally grant such requests; In the absence of explicit agreement, certain enforcement costs may be included in the claim for the judgment amount; New York courts generally do not add foreign enforcement costs into the judgment amount. Instead, a successful judgment creditor in New York may recover post-judgment enforcement costs under New York procedure (e.g., CPLR §8301 et seq.), but those are limited (filing fees, service costs, sheriff’s fees, etc.). They are not automatically merged into the foreign judgment.
The recoverability of attorney fees depends on the specific terms of the judgment and judicial discretion. Attorney’s fees are not recoverable in New York unless: the foreign judgment expressly awards them, a contract between the parties provides for them, or a statute authorizes them.
*Note regarding time/cost estimates throughout this questionnaire:
All time/cost estimates are based on the assumption that the other party fully cooperates with the relevant legal procedures, which rarely happens in practice. Even without opposition, enforcement can face unexpected delays due to changing legislation or bureucratic hold-ups. Additionally, as litigation in this jurisdiction is adversarial in nature, when litigation is involved, the actual time and costs of the relevant legal procedures are in large part determined by the parties' litigation strategies. As such, it is almost impossible to provide a general but accurate cost/time estimate, and clients should instead seek a case-by-case evaluation for more specifically accurate estimates.
