BARTELS DE NUNEZ v. BARTELS (1998)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Lowe, III, J.), entered September 8, 1997, which denied defendant's motion to vacate the New York filing of a Louisiana judgment holding defendant in contempt and directing a Louisiana sheriff to execute certain documents in defendant's stead that are purportedly necessary to effectuate dissolution of the subject Panamanian corporation under the laws of Panama and that authorize defendant to liquidate all of the subject corporation's accounts, and which granted plaintiff's cross motion to enforce such judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no merit to defendant's argument that the trial level Louisiana court, through a strained exercise of its contempt power, did indirectly what it had no subject matter jurisdiction to do directly, namely, dissolve the subject Panamanian corporation, and that the Louisiana judgment in question is therefore not entitled to full faith and credit.   Under the prior Louisiana appellate court order (de Nunez v. Bartels, 684 So.2d 1008, cert. denied 689 So.2d 1379, 1380), which was the determinative factor on the prior appeal before this Court (241 A.D.2d 414, 661 N.Y.S.2d 602), he and plaintiff were directed “to take the necessary legal steps, forthwith, to dissolve [the subject corporation] pursuant to the laws of the Republic of Panama” (de Nunez v. Bartels, supra 684 So.2d, at 1014).   Inasmuch as defendant does not contest that he refused to sign the agreements and corporate resolutions necessary to accomplish such a dissolution, the Louisiana trial level court was statutorily authorized to render a judgment directing a sheriff to do so on defendant's behalf (see, La.Code of Civ.Proc. arts. 1878, 2504).   Since defendant took a “devolutive” rather than “suspensive” appeal from that judgment, it is entitled to full faith and credit and present enforcement (see, Fidelity Standard Life Ins. Co. v. First Natl. Bank & Trust Co., 382 F.Supp. 956, 961-962, aff'd 510 F.2d 272, cert. denied 423 U.S. 864, 96 S.Ct. 125, 46 L.Ed.2d 94).

MEMORANDUM DECISION.