These rules demonstrate that our courts have never been bound to pay unlimited deference to foreign acts of state, defined as an act or law in which the sovereign's governmental interest is involved; they simultaneously cast doubt on the proposition that the additional element in the case at bar, that the property may have been within the territorial confines of Cuba when the expropriation decree was promulgated, requires automatic deference to the decree, regardless of whether the foreign act violates international law.Moscow Fire Ins. Co. v. Bank of New York, 280 N.Y. 286, 20 N.E.2d 758 (1939), aff'd sub nom. United States v. Moscow Fire Ins. Co., 309 U.S. 624; Vladikavkazsky R. Co. v. New York TrustPage 448 Co. 263 N.Y. 369, 189 N.E. 456; Plesch v. Banque National de la Republique D'Haiti, 273 A.D. 224, 77 N.Y.S.2d 43, aff'd 298 N.Y. 573, 81 N.E.2d 106; Bollack v. Societe Generale, 263 A.D. 601, 33 N.Y.S.2d 986; Latvian State Cargo Passenger S. S. Line v. McGrath, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 226, 188 F.2d 1000.Second Russian Ins. Co. v. Miller, 297 F. 404 (C.A. 2d Cir.); James Co. v. Second Russian Ins. Co., 239 N.Y. 248, 146 N.E. 369; Sokoloff v. National City Bank, 239 N.Y. 158, 145 N.E. 917; A/S Merilaid Co. v. Chase Nat'l Bank, 189 Misc. 285, 71 N.Y.S.2d 377 (Sup.Ct. N. Y.).
The New York courts have consistently declined to enforce a cause of action based upon a foreign decree which purports to seize title, without payment of compensation, to property in New York. Vladikavkazsky Ry. Co. v. N. Y. Trust Co., 263 N.Y. 369, 189 N.E. 456, 91 A.L.R. 1426 (1934); Plesch v. Banque Nationale de la Republique d' Haiti, 273 App. Div. 224, 77 N.Y.S.2d 43 (1st Dept. 1948), aff'd, 298 N.Y. 573, 81 N.E.2d 106 (1948). In Anderson v. N.V. Transandine Hendelmaatschappij, 289 N.Y. 9, 43 N.E.2d 502 (1942), the New York court held that a decree of the Netherlands Government in Exile, promulgated in May 1940, taking title to the property of its nationals to hold as trustee for them until the end of World War II, did not offend New York policy.
Since the property here involved was at all times within the United States and no national policy has been suggested which would require this Court to give extraterritorial effect to the confiscation by the Hungarian Government, the way is clear to provide relief for the plaintiff. Banco de Vizcaya v. Don Alfonso de Borbon y Austria, [1935] 1 K.B. 140; Plesch v. Banque Nationale de la Republique D'Haiti, 1st Dept., 273 App. Div. 224, 77 N.Y.S.2d 43, affirmed 1948, 298 N.Y. 573, 81 N.E.2d 106; Restatement, Conflict of Laws § 612 (1934). 2 Moore, A Digest of International Law, 30-32 (1906); Holdsworth, The History of Acts of State in English Law, 41 Columbia Law Review 1313 (1941); Mann, The Sacrosanctity of the Foreign Act of State, 59 L.Q.Rev. 42, 155 (1943); Comment, 57 Yale Law Journal 108 (1947).
"It is enough that as to a major portion of their claim we cannot say as matter of law on this record that the plaintiffs must ultimately be defeated (see American Reserve Ins. Co. v. China Ins. Co., 297 N.Y. 322, 325)." ( Plesch v. Banque Nationale de le Republic d'Haiti, 298 N.Y. 573, 575.) Since products or some related form of liability (if established) would mean that the infant plaintiff's injuries arose out of the particular business transaction engaged in by the nonresident manufacturer in the purposeful circulation of this hammer in the stream of commerce in New York State, enough has been shown prima facie to warrant upholding jurisdiction to try this issue.
In the instant case, plaintiff's Hungarian citizenship had been revoked and he was living in exile when his pension rights were finally and completely repudiated in 1948. These decrees were therefore not binding upon him, nor can defendant successfully assert them as a defense since (unless they bound plaintiff) they were invalid and ineffective as contrary to our public policy (Plesch v. Banque Nationale de la Republique d'Haiti, 273 A.D. 224, and cases cited, affd. 298 N.Y. 573). The trial court did not base its award of a lump sum to plaintiff upon the New York law relative to anticipatory breach of contract.
In Willy v. Mulledy ( 78 N.Y. 310, 314) it was held: "When a statute imposes a duty upon a public officer, it is well settled that any person having a special interest in the performance thereof may sue for a breach thereof causing him damage, and the same is true of a duty imposed by statute upon any citizen". In Plesch v. Banque Nationale de la Republique d'Haiti ( 273 App. Div. 224, 228, affd. 298 N.Y. 573) Judge VAN VOORHIS, writing for the majority of the Appellate Division, declared: "It is well settled that one cannot successfully assert as a defense to an action for wrongfully dealing with property that he acted pursuant to governmental orders, if such orders were invalid or ineffective." In Schulman v. People ( 10 N.Y.2d 249) the Superintendent of Public Works of the State attempted to exercise certain powers of eminent domain under section 30 High. of the Highway Law. The Court of Appeals decided against the State holding that the State did not have the power of condemnation sought to be exercised under the statute in question.
No valid reason currently exists to frustrate our public policy, as expressed in the controlling statute, and thereby allow Czechoslovakia to take advantage of one of the privileges of Fund membership when it is no longer a member. (See Bernstein v. N.V. Nederlandsche-Amerikaansche Stoomvaart-Maatschappij, 210 F.2d 375; Perutz v. Bohemian Discount Bank in Liquidation, 304 N.Y. 533, supra; Plesch v. Banque Nationale de la Republique d'Haiti, 273 App. Div. 224, affd. 298 N.Y. 573; Bollack v. Societe Generale Pour Favoriser le Development de Commerce et de L'Industrie en France, 263 App. Div. 601; Sulyok v. Penzintezeti Kozpont Budapest, 279 App. Div. 528; Stern v. Pesti Magyar Kereskedelmi Bank, 303 N.Y. 881; Freund v. Laenderbank Wien Aktiengesellschaft, 277 App. Div. 770; Sabl v. Laenderbank Wien Aktiengesellschaft, 30 N.Y.S.2d 608.) Accordingly, the present status of Czechoslovakia in relation to the International Monetary Fund does not bar the plaintiffs in this action.