Source: http://ny.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20010529_0000136.SNY.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-04-27 07:30:36
Document Index: 502317092

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 201', '§ 6211', '§ 6223', '§ 6223', '§ 6201', '§ 5301', '§ 5303', '§ 5304']

| OCEAN WAREHOUSING B.v. v. BARON METALS AND ALLOYS
OCEAN WAREHOUSING B.v. v. BARON METALS AND ALLOYS
OCEAN WAREHOUSING B.V., PRESENTLY KNOWN AS HENRY BATH B.V., PLAINTIFF,v.BARON METALS AND ALLOYS, INC., MARCO INTERNATIONAL (HK), LTD., AND MARCO INTERNATIONAL CORP. D/B/A BARON METALS AND ALLOYS, INC. AND D/B/A MARCO INTERNATIONAL (HK), LTD., DEFENDANTS.
Ocean Warehousing B.V. has filed this action against Baron Metals and
Alloys, Inc. ("Baron"), Marco International (HK), Ltd. ("Marco"), and
Marco International Corp. ("Marco Corp.") d/b/a Baron Metals and Alloys,
Inc. and d/b/a Marco International (HK), Ltd., seeking entry of a Dutch
arbitral award as a judgment of the United States pursuant to the
("Convention"), 9 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. On February 13, 2001, this
Court signed an ex parte order of attachment against Baron and Marco in
the amount of $110,000.00, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64
and Articles 62 and 53 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules
("C.P.L.R."). Pending before this Court are plaintiff's motion to confirm
the order of attachment pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 6211(b) (McKinney
1980), and defendants' cross-motion to vacate the order of attachment
pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 6223 (McKinney 1980).*fn1 For the reasons
stated below, plaintiff's motion is granted and defendants' cross-motion
Ocean Warehousing, presently known as Henry Bath B.V., is a Netherlands
corporation involved in customs clearance and forwarding of goods shipped
in international commerce. See 4/25/01 Declaration of James Ross ("Ross
Decl."), attorney for plaintiff, ¶ 2. Baron is a New York
corporation, and Marco is a Hong Kong corporation with a place of
business in New York. See Amended Verified Complaint ("Am. Compl.")
¶¶ 5, 6. Both Baron and Marco are involved in the international import
and export of metal products. See id. ¶ 3.
Marco Corp. is a New York
corporation and is alleged to be the alter ego of Baron and Marco. See
Since 1995, plaintiff has acted as defendants' forwarding agent in the
Netherlands and has performed various services including customs
clearance of goods transported by sea to the Netherlands. See id. ¶
8. The parties never signed a contract dictating the terms of their
agreement. See 5/2/01 Affidavit of Michael Barenholtz, an officer of
Baron, ¶ 5; 5/2/01 Affidavit of Alan Kestenbaum, an officer of
Marco, ¶ 5. However, the parties often exchanged written
communications. Each written communication from plaintiff to defendants
— including price quotes, invoices, and plaintiff's request for a
limited power of attorney — contained at the bottom of the page
boilerplate language advising that plaintiff's services as a forwarding
agent "shall always be governed by the latest version of the . . . Dutch
Forwarding Conditions . . . including the arbitration clauses included
therein."*fn2 Exs. 1-6 to Ross Decl. This boilerplate was printed in
A dispute arose concerning defendants' refusal to pay plaintiff for
funds Ocean Warehousing expended after the Dutch government altered its
import tax laws with respect to magnesium shipments. See Ross Decl.
¶¶ 15-16. In May 1999, Ocean Warehousing commenced an arbitration
proceeding in the Netherlands pursuant to the Dutch Forwarding
Conditions. See id. ¶ 17. Although they received adequate notice of
the arbitration proceeding, defendants never appeared in that forum.*fn3
See id. ¶ 18. A default judgment was entered against defendants in
the amount of $136,324.89. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14, 15. On November 7,
2000, plaintiff filed a petition to the President of the District Court
of Rotterdam, seeking to confirm the arbitration award as an enforceable
judgment. See id. ¶ 16. On November 9, 2000, the arbitral award was
confirmed as a Dutch judgment, which under Dutch law is final, conclusive
and enforceable in the Netherlands. See id. ¶ 17. Although this
judgment is subject to appeal, no appeal has been filed. See id.
Section 6211(b) of the C.P.L.R. requires that ex parte orders of
attachment be confirmed within certain time limits. Such proceedings are
governed by section 6223(b) of the C.P.L.R. which provides that: "Upon a
motion to vacate or modify an order of attachment the plaintiff shall
have the burden of establishing the grounds for the attachment, the need
for continuing the levy and the probability that [it] will succeed on the
merits." N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 6223(b). Defendants only
challenge plaintiff's ability to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the
To determine the probability that plaintiff will succeed on the
merits, a court must analyze whether the attachment is permitted under
the relevant state statute. Article 62 of the C.P.L.R. authorizes
attachment, inter alia, when "the cause of action is based . . . on a
judgment which qualifies for recognition under the provisions of article
53." N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 6201(4). Article 53, in turn, provides for the
recognition and enforcement by a New York court of foreign money
judgments.*fn4 See N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5301 et seq. "Under New York
law, . . . a foreign-country judgment that is final, conclusive and
enforceable where rendered must be recognized and will be enforced as
`conclusive between the parties to the extent that it grants or denies
recovery of a sum of money.'" In re Union Carbide Corp. Gas Plant
Disaster at Bhopal, India, 809 F.2d 195, 204 (2d Cir. 1987) (emphasis
added) (quoting N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5303). "Indeed, New York has a
`long-standing' tradition of `permitting the enforcement of foreign
country money judgments.'" Bridgeway Corp. v. Citibank, 45 F. Supp.2d 276,
285 (S.D.N Y 1999) (quoting Fairchild, Arabatzis & Smith, Inc. v.
Prometco (Produce & Metals) Co., 470 F. Supp. 610, 615 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)).
New York law, however, recognizes mandatory grounds for the
non-recognition of a foreign judgment: (1) "the judgment was rendered
under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures
compatible with the requirements of due process of law"; or (2) "the
foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant."
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 5304(a). Similarly, a foreign country judgment "need
not be recognized" if:
1. the foreign court did not have jurisdiction over
2. the defendant in the proceedings in the foreign
court did not receive notice of the proceedings in