Opinion
8428 Index 602434/05
02-19-2019
Ruth KASSOVER, etc., et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. PRISM VENTURES PARTNERS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Allerand 675 Company, LLC, Intervenor–Appellant.
Kucker & Bruh, LLP, New York (Catherine A. Helwig of counsel), for appellant. Hahn & Hessen LLP, New York (Stephen J. Grable of counsel), for respondents.
Kucker & Bruh, LLP, New York (Catherine A. Helwig of counsel), for appellant.
Hahn & Hessen LLP, New York (Stephen J. Grable of counsel), for respondents.
Richter, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Gesmer, Oing, JJ.
The motion court correctly engaged in a conflict of laws analysis, as the competing mechanics of Florida's and New York's laws of priority of judgment liens would yield differing results (see Matter of Istim, Inc. v. Chemical Bank, 78 N.Y.2d 342, 348, 575 N.Y.S.2d 796, 581 N.E.2d 1042 [1991] ).
The court correctly found that New York had the superior interest in having its law applied (see Schultz v. Boy Scouts of Am., 65 N.Y.2d 189, 197, 491 N.Y.S.2d 90, 480 N.E.2d 679 [1985] ; Matter of Istim, 78 N.Y.2d at 348–349, 575 N.Y.S.2d 796, 581 N.E.2d 1042 ). The New York judgment at issue arose from a dispute over the merger of a New York business, among New Yorkers subject to New York law; Florida's interest is the result of one defendant's unilateral acts in moving one of the judgment debtors and its property to Florida.
Contrary to intervenor's contention, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not require the enforcement of its Florida judgment, because the judgment has not been domesticated pursuant to New York law (see American Fid. Fire Ins. Co. v. Paste–Ups Unlimited, Inc., 368 F.Supp. 219, 224 [S.D. N.Y.1973] ).