No Personal Jurisdiction Needed to Domesticate Sister‑State Judgments in New York

Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Simms (2025 NY Slip Op 04541), Appellate Division, Second Department

Introduction

Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Simms squarely addresses a recurring threshold question in judgment enforcement: must a New York court possess personal jurisdiction over a nonresident judgment debtor to recognize and domesticate a sister-state money judgment? In a clear and practical opinion, the Second Department holds that it does not. The decision tightens the fit between the Full Faith and Credit Clause’s recognition mandate and New York’s procedural devices for turning out-of-state judgments into New York judgments, especially when the underlying judgment was entered on default and therefore cannot be filed via the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act’s streamlined mechanism.

The case arose from a 2017 renewed North Carolina default judgment against the defendant, a North Carolina resident with no New York contacts or assets, according to his affidavit. Cadlerock sought recognition and enforcement in New York via CPLR 3213 (summary judgment in lieu of complaint). The Supreme Court denied the motion and dismissed under CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Appellate Division reversed, clarifying that while New York cannot revisit the merits of a sister-state judgment, it can and should recognize it even absent personal jurisdiction over the debtor, leaving questions of execution and collection for a later stage.

Summary of the Judgment

• Holding: New York does not need personal jurisdiction over a judgment debtor to recognize and domesticate a sister-state money judgment that is entitled to full faith and credit.
• Procedure: A default judgment from another state, which is ineligible for filing under CPLR article 54 (the Foreign Judgments Act) due to CPLR 5401, may be domesticated in New York by a plenary action or via CPLR 3213.
• Scope: Recognition is distinct from enforcement. The absence of New York assets or debtor contacts may limit immediate enforcement tools, but does not bar recognition and entry of a New York judgment.
• Disposition: Reversed. Plaintiff’s CPLR 3213 motion granted; defendant’s CPLR 3211(a)(8) cross-motion denied.

Factual and Procedural Background

• 2007: A North Carolina court entered a default judgment against the defendant and others.
• 2012–2017: Cadlerock became the judgment assignee and obtained a renewed North Carolina judgment in 2017, with findings that service was proper and the principal remained due.
• 2023: Cadlerock moved in New York under CPLR 3213 to enforce the 2017 North Carolina judgment, submitting evidence that the debt remained substantially unpaid.
• Defense: The defendant, a North Carolina resident, did not challenge the validity of the North Carolina judgment or the rendering court’s jurisdiction; instead, he argued New York lacked personal jurisdiction and that he had no New York assets or connections.
• Trial court ruling: Denied CPLR 3213; dismissed under CPLR 3211(a)(8) for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• Appellate outcome: Reversed. Personal jurisdiction in New York is not required to recognize and domesticate a sister-state judgment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

• Underwriters National Assurance Co. v. North Carolina Life & Accident & Health Insurance Guaranty Assn. (455 US 691)
  Reaffirmed that full faith and credit requires giving a sister-state judgment the same “credit, validity, and effect” it had where rendered. The court uses this to underscore the constitutional baseline: New York must recognize valid sister-state judgments.
• Milwaukee County v. M.E. White Co. (296 US 268)
  Central to the proposition that an action on a judgment is distinct from the underlying cause, and that merits are not open to inquiry upon recognition. The Second Department relies on this to separate recognition from revisiting merits or jurisdiction beyond the rendering court’s due process.
• V.L. v. E.L. (577 US 404)
  Clarifies the stringent nature of full faith and credit: a state may not deny recognition based on disagreement with the underlying reasoning. Supports the ministerial nature of recognition in the absence of a jurisdictional defect in the rendering state.
• Baker v. General Motors Corp. (522 US 222)
  Emphasizes the “exacting” nature of the full faith and credit obligation concerning judgments, reinforcing the limited grounds for refusal to recognize.
• Milliken v. Meyer (311 US 457)
  Cited for the premise that full faith and credit precludes revisiting merits or legal principles if the rendering court had jurisdiction and due process was satisfied.
• Shaffer v. Heitner (433 US 186)
  The court quotes its key principle: once a court of competent jurisdiction determines the debtor’s obligation, it is fair to allow actions to realize on that debt in another state where the debtor has property, even if that state could not have adjudicated the original claim. A pivotal footnote (n.36) helps the court explain why personal jurisdiction in New York is unnecessary for recognition, though execution remains limited to in-state assets or proper reach under enforcement statutes.
• Fiore v. Oakwood Plaza Shopping Ctr. (78 NY2d 572)
  New York Court of Appeals authority recognizing that the only permissible collateral attack on a sister-state judgment concerns the rendering court’s jurisdiction. Here, no such attack was made.
• CIBC Mellon Trust Co. v. Mora Hotel Corp. (100 NY2d 215)
  The Court of Appeals described recognition of foreign judgments as a “ministerial function” when full faith and credit applies (and by analogy, judgments entitled to recognition). It also lauds New York’s policy of being a generous forum for enforcing external judgments, supporting the Second Department’s approach.
• Lenchyshyn v. Pelko Electric (281 AD2d 42)
  A leading Appellate Division case holding that New York need not have personal jurisdiction over a judgment debtor to recognize a foreign country judgment; the plaintiff “does not seek any new relief” but merely domestication. The Second Department analogizes that logic to sister-state judgments, reinforcing that recognition is not contingent on New York personal jurisdiction.
• Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v. Saad Trading, Contracting & Financial Services Co. (117 AD3d 609)
  Similar to Lenchyshyn, it supports recognition without personal jurisdiction in New York so long as the rendering court had jurisdiction and due process.
• Progressive International Co. v. Varun Continental, Ltd. (16 AD3d 476); Madjar v. Rosa (83 AD3d 1011); Steinberg v. Metro Entertainment Corp. (145 AD2d 333)
  These cases confirm that default judgments from other jurisdictions, not eligible for the CPLR article 54 registration route, may be domesticated via CPLR 3213 or a plenary action.
• Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co. (191 US 373)
  Acknowledges that while full faith and credit requires recognition, it does not compel a state to utilize its courts to enforce a judgment. The Second Department reconciles this with New York’s policy preference to aid enforcement efficiently.
• Plymouth Venture Partners, II, L.P. v. GTR Source, LLC (37 NY3d 591)
  Cited (via the Wilson dissent) to note the limits of enforcement mechanisms when a court lacks jurisdiction. This supports the opinion’s recognition/enforcement distinction.
• Cadle Co. v. Ayala (47 AD3d 919)
  The court characterizes contrary language as dicta, emphasizing that personal jurisdiction was not actually litigated in that case and thus it is not controlling.

Legal Reasoning

1. Recognition versus Merits
   The court reiterates that an action on a judgment is not an action on the underlying debt or claim. The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires recognition of sister-state judgments absent a successful attack on the rendering court’s jurisdiction. New York courts may not reassess the merits or legal reasoning underlying the foreign judgment.
2. Due Process Is Satisfied in the Rendering State
   The judgment debtor’s due process liberty interest (to avoid being bound by judgments from forums with which he lacks meaningful contacts) is protected by the jurisdictional analysis in the rendering court and the opportunity to contest there. Once the rendering court’s jurisdiction stands unchallenged (as here), due process is not offended by recognition in New York.
3. No New Relief Sought in Recognition
   Recognition/domestication seeks no “new” substantive relief; it simply converts a sister-state judgment into a New York judgment so it can be treated as such. That function is “ministerial,” and therefore does not require personal jurisdiction over the debtor in New York.
4. Procedural Path for Default Judgments
   Because CPLR 5401 excludes default-in-appearance judgments from the simplified filing mechanism of CPLR 5402, judgment creditors may proceed via a plenary action or CPLR 3213 (summary judgment in lieu of complaint). The Second Department confirms CPLR 3213 is an appropriate vehicle in this posture.
5. Enforcement Is Different and May Be Limited
   The court emphasizes that recognition/domestication is distinct from execution. While recognition does not require personal jurisdiction, certain enforcement measures may require New York assets or other jurisdictional predicates under CPLR article 52. The absence of assets goes to the feasibility of collection, not to the threshold availability of recognition.

Impact

• For Judgment Creditors
  The decision provides a clear roadmap for domesticating sister-state default judgments in New York via CPLR 3213 without establishing the debtor’s New York contacts or in-state property. This allows creditors to position themselves quickly to collect if assets are later identified in New York, or to leverage the domesticated judgment in interjurisdictional collection strategies.
• For Judgment Debtors
  Nonresident debtors cannot avoid domestication in New York simply by lacking contacts or assets in the state. However, they remain free to challenge recognition on the limited grounds that the rendering court lacked jurisdiction or violated due process, if such grounds exist, and to contest any subsequent enforcement steps that exceed New York’s jurisdictional reach.
• For New York Courts and Practice
  The ruling harmonizes New York practice with the constitutional mandate of full faith and credit, while maintaining a coherent distinction between recognition and execution. It reinforces New York’s reputation as a predictable and efficient forum for recognition of external judgments, which in turn promotes reciprocity for New York judgments elsewhere.
• Doctrinal Clarification
  The opinion synthesizes federal constitutional doctrine (full faith and credit; due process) with New York’s statutory framework (CPLR articles 52 and 54; CPLR 3213), offering an authoritative statement that personal jurisdiction is not a predicate to domestication of sister-state judgments—even where the underlying judgment is by default.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Full Faith and Credit (US Constitution, art IV, §1)
  Requires each state to recognize and give effect to valid judgments issued by courts of other states. A New York court cannot re-litigate the merits of a valid North Carolina judgment.
• Personal Jurisdiction
  A court’s power over a person (the defendant). Due process requires meaningful contacts with the forum for adjudicating claims on the merits. However, personal jurisdiction in New York is not required merely to recognize another state’s judgment that was validly entered.
• Recognition vs. Enforcement
  Recognition (domestication) turns the out-of-state judgment into a New York judgment. Enforcement refers to the tools used to collect (e.g., levies, turnover orders). Recognition can occur without New York personal jurisdiction; some enforcement steps may still require in-state assets or other jurisdictional bases.
• Default Judgment and CPLR Article 54
  Judgments entered on default are excluded from the streamlined filing procedure of CPLR 5402. They can still be recognized in New York via a plenary action or CPLR 3213.
• CPLR 3213 (Summary Judgment in Lieu of Complaint)
  A fast-track procedure for certain claims, including actions on judgments. It allows quick domestication when the only real issue is whether a valid judgment exists and remains unpaid.
• Res Judicata Effect
  Once recognized, the sister-state judgment is conclusive as to the debtor’s obligation. The merits of the original dispute are not open to re-litigation in New York.
• Ministerial Function
  Recognition converts a judgment without reassessing the underlying dispute. It is a limited, administrative step guided by the constitutional duty to give full faith and credit.

Practical Implications and Examples

• Strategic Filing
  A creditor holding a valid sister-state default judgment can promptly file a CPLR 3213 motion in New York to domesticate, even if the debtor has no known New York contacts. This preserves the creditor’s ability to act swiftly if New York assets are later found or migrate into the state.
• Challenging Recognition
  A debtor wishing to resist domestication must focus on the rendering court’s jurisdiction or due process (e.g., improper service, lack of minimum contacts with the rendering state). Mere absence of New York contacts is not a defense to recognition.
• Enforcement Limits
  After domestication, creditors must still observe jurisdictional limits for enforcement mechanisms. For example, a turnover order against a nonresident garnishee with out-of-state assets may require separate jurisdictional analysis under CPLR article 52 and recent New York Court of Appeals guidance.

Conclusion

Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Simms establishes a clear and workable rule: New York courts do not need personal jurisdiction over a judgment debtor to recognize and domesticate a sister-state money judgment that is entitled to full faith and credit. The decision reinforces foundational constitutional doctrine, aligns with New York’s pro-recognition policy, and sensibly distinguishes recognition from enforcement. Creditors benefit from a predictable pathway to convert sister-state judgments into New York judgments via CPLR 3213 or a plenary action, while debtors remain protected by the opportunity to challenge the rendering court’s jurisdiction and by the jurisdictional limits governing post-judgment enforcement. In the broader legal landscape, the case enhances the efficiency and reciprocity of interstate judgment enforcement without sacrificing due process principles.