Contrary to defendant's contention, Matter of Pearson v Pearson ( 69 N.Y.2d 919) does not bar discretionary enforcement of nonfinal foreign decrees ( see, Mittenthal v. Mittenthal, 99 Misc.2d 778), but merely limits enforcement of foreign decrees to those that are extant and otherwise valid. Given the extensive record developed in the New Jersey proceeding showing deception and evasiveness on defendant's part, and that defendant had ample opportunity to advance his claims or defenses in that proceeding, enforcement of the New Jersey judgment was a proper exercise of discretion. We also reject defendant's contention that aspects of the New Jersey judgment unlawfully restrain his ability to practice law, and note the cautionary measures taken by the IAS Court in that regard. We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.