Opinion
March 25, 1952.
Present — Peck, P.J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ. [ 197 Misc. 369.]
The alleged conversion by defendant of plaintiff's property occurred in the Philippines. The first defense pleads the benefit of a judgment of a Philippine court as to rights in the property. Plaintiff contends the Philippine judgment is not available as a defense because it has been dissipated by a decision of our Court of Appeals. Defendant was not a party to the action terminating in the decision of the Court of Appeals. That decision may be determinative of defendant's rights in the property, as Special Term has held, but as the Philippine judgment is a subsequent judgment, we think that defendant is entitled to assert it as a defense to the present action. We do not pass upon its ultimate effect, but believe that its efficacy can better be determined at the trial than upon motion. Order on defendant's appeal is reversed and the motion denied, and is affirmed on the plaintiff's appeal, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant-appellant. Settle order on notice.