民商事判决或仲裁裁决跨境执行业务指南
Guideline of the Cross-border Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgment or Arbitration Award
导语：德恒香港跨境执行业务中心于2025年3月成立。该中心依托香港区位和专业优势，整合境内外调查资源、执行资源，打造专业跨境执行法律服务团队，为境内外客户提供一站式跨境执行服务，为解决“执行难”问题开辟新路径。该中心邀请境外争议解决专业律师合作，组织编写了民商事判决或仲裁裁决在香港、澳门、美国、英国、加拿大、澳大利亚、新加坡等主流被执行人资产所在国家或地区的域外认可和执行的法律概况。本系列文章将按司法管辖区陆续更新。
Preamble:
In March 2025, DeHeng Law Offices (Hong Kong) LLP established its Cross-Border Enforcement Center (“Center”). Given the strategic location and professional expertise of Hong Kong, the Center aims to offer solutions for a connected world and a new approach to addressing the practical challenges of enforcing court judgments and arbitration awards. It will integrate diverse domestic and international resources, drawing upon the expertise of its global dispute resolution team, to provide clients with a one-stop, high-level comparative analysis of cross-border enforcement of court judgments and arbitration awards. The Center has cooperated with the expertise of its global dispute resolution team to provide the client a series of analysis on the extraterritorial recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments or arbitral awards of the Chinese Mainland in Hong Kong, Macau, USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Singapore and other main jurisdictions where the assets of the debtor are kept. This series of analysis will be updated successively by jurisdiction.
专栏：跨境执行指南系列之美国纽约州篇
Cross-border Enforcement Guideline - New York State, USA
（一）纽约州与哪些司法管辖区在执行民商事判决方面有互惠安排？
With which jurisdictions does New York State have reciprocal arrangements for enforcement of civil and commercial judgments?
根据纽约州法律，外国国家作出的民事或商事金钱判决的承认与执行适用纽约州版本的《统一外国国家金钱判决承认法》（“CPLR”）第53条。第53条本身并不设定互惠要求，相反，其所规定的是承认与不予承认的法定事由（例如管辖权欠缺、欺诈，或与正当程序不相容的程序瑕疵）。互惠原则源自更为宽泛的国际礼让原则，而该原则支撑了纽约作为“友好承认法域”的政策取向。正如上诉法院在CIBC Mellon Trust Co. v. Mora Hotel Corp. N.V.一案中所阐明的，纽约州承认外国判决并非出于法定义务，而是为了促使他国以承认纽约州法院判决作为回应。在本案中，纽约州上诉法院确认，纽约州一贯对外国判决的承认持宽容态度，正是为了在域外促成互惠。法院进一步说明，债权人无需证明外国法院经常性地执行纽约州判决；相反，只需证明有关外国法域在原则上对承认与执行纽约州法院判决持开放态度。该项审查系务实且与个案事实相关：关键在于，从整体上观察，该外国法律体系是否符合基本公正，并在实质上给予互惠对待。因此，纽约州法院不要求证明外国法院常态化地执行纽约判决。只要该外国体系在原则上设有公正的审判机关，并承认执行之可能性，即足以保障公平并维系对互惠待遇的合理期待。
Under New York law, the recognition and enforcement of foreign country civil or commercial money judgments is governed by Article 53 of the CPLR (New York’s version of the Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgment Recognition Act). Article 53 itself does not impose a reciprocity requirement; instead, it sets out statutory grounds for recognition and for refusal (such as lack of jurisdiction, fraud, or procedures incompatible with due process). Reciprocity arises from the broader doctrine of international comity, which underlies New York’s policy of being a generous forum for recognition. As the Court of Appeals explained in CIBC Mellon Trust Co. v. Mora Hotel Corp. N.V., New York enforces foreign judgments not because it is compelled to, but because doing so encourages other countries to reciprocate and honor New York judgments in return. In the instant case, the New York Court of Appeals confirmed that New York has traditionally been a generous forum for recognizing foreign judgments, precisely to encourage reciprocity abroad. The Court explained that it is not necessary for a judgment creditor to prove that foreign courts routinely enforce New York judgments; rather, it is sufficient to demonstrate that the foreign jurisdiction is, in principle, open to recognizing and enforcing judgments from New York courts. The inquiry is practical and fact-specific: the question is whether the foreign system, viewed as a whole, comports with basic fairness and affords reciprocal treatment in substance. Thus, New York courts do not require proof that foreign courts routinely enforce New York judgments. It is sufficient that the foreign system, in principle, provides impartial tribunals and recognizes the possibility of enforcement, ensuring fairness and maintaining the expectation of reciprocal treatment.
实践中，纽约州法院已承认来自加拿大、英国、法国、德国、日本、韩国和中国香港等多个国家和地区的金钱判决。纽约州法院指出，上述法域的法院通常提供公正的审判机关，并设有与正当程序相容的程序保障，其法律体系原则上亦允许承认与执行美国民商事判决。此种相互开放体现了以国际礼让为基础、常以“互惠”表述的理由，即便互惠并非纽约《外国国家金钱判决承认法》（CPLR第53条）下的法定要件。
In practice, New York courts have recognized money judgments from a variety of countries and territories, including Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong. New York Courts have noted that courts in those jurisdictions generally provide impartial tribunals and procedures compatible with due process, and their legal systems allow, in principle, for the recognition of U.S. civil and commercial judgments. This mutual openness reflects the comity-based rationale often described in terms of reciprocity, even though reciprocity is not a statutory requirement under New York’s Recognition Act. By contrast, if a jurisdiction categorically refuses to recognize U.S. judgments or if its judicial system lacks basic due-process safeguards, New York courts may decline recognition under CPLR Article 53.
需要强调的是，根据纽约州法律，互惠并非法定要件本身，而是支撑纽约州宽松承认与执行政策之国际礼让（comity）理由的一部分。即便能够证明互惠，且相关外国法域之法律体系被认为是开放、公正且与正当程序相兼容，外国判决仍须提交纽约州法院申请承认或执行。为获得支持，该判决须符合CPLR第53条所规定之法定标准——例如在作出地为终局、确定且可执行——并且不得落入该法条所规定的任何抗辩事由之内，包括与纽约州之公共政策相抵触等。
It should be emphasized that under New York Law, reciprocity is not itself a statutory requirement but rather part of the comity rationale for New York’s liberal enforcement policy. Even when reciprocity is established and a foreign jurisdiction’s legal system is regarded as open, impartial, and compatible with due process, a foreign judgment must still be presented to a New York court for recognition or enforcement. To succeed, the judgment must meet the statutory criteria under CPLR Article 53—such as being final, conclusive, and enforceable where rendered—and it must not fall within any of the defenses provided by the statute, including contravention of New York public policy.
（二）如果没有互惠安排，是否仍有可能执行外国民商事判决？
If there is no reciprocal arrangement, is it still possible to enforce a foreign civil and commercial judgment?
在纽约州，即使某一外国司法辖区与纽约州之间没有正式的互惠安排，外国民商事判决在某些情况下仍有可能被承认和执行。这是因为纽约州法院在审查外国判决时并不以是否存在条约或明确的互惠协定为唯一标准，而是采用一个以“公平性”和“正当程序”为核心的实质性分析框架。
In New York State, even in the absence of a formal reciprocity arrangement between New York and a foreign jurisdiction, foreign civil and commercial judgments may nevertheless be recognized and enforced in certain circumstances. New York courts do not treat the existence of a treaty or an explicit reciprocity agreement as the sole criterion; instead they apply a substantive analytical framework centered on fairness and due process.
根据纽约州的判例法，即使对方国家不普遍承认美国判决，纽约州法院仍可能根据该外国法院的司法制度是否提供了类似于美国的正当程序（due process）、是否具备适当的管辖权（jurisdiction）、是否存在程序性和实质性的公正（procedural and substantive fairness）等因素作出判断。只要外国法院所作出的判决不是出于欺诈、未给予当事人充分的辩护机会，或不违反纽约州的重大公共政策，纽约州法院仍可能承认并执行该外国的民商事判决。
Under New York case law, a court may recognize a foreign judgment despite a foreign jurisdiction’s general reluctance to recognize U.S. judgments by examining whether the foreign tribunal’s judicial system provided protections comparable to those in the United States. Relevant considerations include whether the foreign court afforded due process, whether it had proper jurisdiction, and whether the proceedings and the resulting judgment comported with procedural and substantive fairness. So long as the foreign judgment was not procured by fraud, did not deprive the parties of a full opportunity to be heard, and does not contravene New York’s fundamental public policy, New York courts may grant recognition and enforcement.
此外，纽约州法院曾在一些案件中强调，互惠的缺乏并不构成自动拒绝承认的依据。例如，在一些涉及中国、俄罗斯等国家的案件中，虽然相关国家对外国判决的承认存在较高门槛，纽约州法院仍然愿意根据具体案情独立审查是否存在程序正义与实质公平，从而决定是否执行相关民商事判决。
Moreover, New York courts have emphasized in some decisions that lack of reciprocity is not an automatic bar to recognition. For example, in cases involving jurisdictions such as China or Russia—where recognition of foreign judgments may face high hurdles—New York courts have nonetheless conducted independent, case-specific reviews of procedural justice and substantive fairness before deciding whether to enforce the judgment.
简而言之，尽管互惠为纽约州对外国判决予以宽松承认与执行的政策基础之一，但其本身并非法定要件。只要外国判决符合基本的程序公正，具有合法的管辖权基础且不违反纽约州的公共政策，即使不存在正式的互惠安排，仍可在纽约州承认和执行。
In short, while reciprocity provides part of the policy rationale for New York’s liberal enforcement of foreign judgments, it is not a statutory requirement. A foreign judgment that satisfies basic procedural fairness, rests on a valid jurisdictional basis, and does not contravene New York public policy can be recognized and enforced in New York even absent a formal reciprocity arrangement.
（三）纽约州是否执行《纽约公约》？
Does New York State give effect to the New York Convention?
是的，纽约州执行该公约。美国已签署《承认和执行外国仲裁裁决公约》，通常称为《纽约公约》。
Yes, New York State gives effect to this Convention. The United States is signatory to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, commonly known as the New York Convention.
（四）如果没有异议，登记和执行外国民商事判决或提交申请确认和执行外国仲裁裁决大约需要多长时间？
What is the approximate time required to recognize and enforce a foreign civil and commercial judgment or to petition to confirm a foreign arbitration award and enforce if unopposed?
(1)在纽约州，如果没有异议或实质性的抗辩，登记和执行外国民商事判决的时间取决于以下几个因素：
(1) In New York State, absent objections or substantial defenses, the time required for the registration and enforcement of foreign civil or commercial judgments is generally depending on the following factors:
(a)法院的受理速度与排期情况：不同地区的法院在案件管理和日程安排上存在差异。例如，纽约县（曼哈顿）民事法院通常案件量较大，排期可能稍慢，而一些其他郡县可能处理更快;
(a) Court filing efficiency and scheduling: Courts in different jurisdictions vary in case management and docket practices. For instance, the New York County (Manhattan) Civil Court typically has a heavier caseload, which may lead to slightly slower scheduling, whereas some other counties may process cases more expeditiously.
(b)程序是否顺利：如果被执行方未对外国判决提出异议（例如质疑法院是否具有管辖权、判决是否违反公共政策、是否已履行等），程序将进入简化路径，法院通常可以根据书面材料作出判决，无需开庭听证，从而节省大量时间；
(b) Smoothness of proceedings: If the judgment debtor does not raise objections to the foreign judgment (e.g., challenging the court’s jurisdiction, alleging violation of public policy, or claiming the judgment has already been satisfied), the process will enter an expedited track. In such cases, the court may issue a decision based on written submissions without requiring oral hearings, thereby saving significant time.
(c)送达程序的完成情况：即便无异议，法院仍要求申请人证明已将执行申请文件依法送达被执行人。如果被执行人位于海外，则需依据《海牙送达公约》或纽约州民事诉讼规则（CPLR）完成送达，可能导致额外的时间延迟；及
(c) Completion of service of process: Even where there are no objections, the applicant is still required to prove that the documents related to the enforcement application have been served on the judgment debtor in accordance with law. If the judgment debtor is located overseas, service must be effected pursuant to the Hague Service Convention or the New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), which may result in additional time delays.
(d)文件翻译与认证：如原始外国判决为非英文文书，需提供合格的英文翻译，并通常需要宣誓翻译声明。部分情况下，法院可能要求对判决加盖外国法院的认证或公证，这也可能影响时间进度。
(d) Document translation and authentication: Where the original foreign judgment is in a language other than English, a qualified English translation must be provided, typically accompanied by an affidavit of translation. In some cases, the court may require authentication or notarization of the judgment by the foreign court, which could also affect the timeline.
(2)在纽约州，如果没有异议，登记并执行外国仲裁裁决通常可在数月内完成。纽约作为《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（“《纽约公约》”）的缔约国，美国依据《联邦仲裁法》第2章提供了执行外国仲裁裁决的联邦法律框架。申请人只需向联邦地区法院（如纽约南区联邦法院）提交经认证的仲裁裁决副本、仲裁协议副本以及必要的英文翻译。在收取上述文件后，法院可受理申请并快速签发执行令。若被执行人在美国境内，送达程序通常较为迅速；若在美国境外，可能需通过《海牙送达公约》完成送达，致使程序延续约3-6个月。在程序顺利、文件齐备、送达及时且无实质性抗辩的情况下，法院常可在数月内判定确认并执行仲裁裁决，通常无需开庭听证。
(2) In New York State, the processing and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards are generally completed within several months. As a contracting state to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the "New York Convention"), the United States provides the federal legal framework for enforcing foreign arbitral awards pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Applicants need only submit to a federal district court (e.g., the Southern District of New York (SDNY)) a certified copy of the arbitral award, a copy of the arbitration agreement, and any necessary English translations. Upon receipt of these documents, New York courts may accept the application and promptly issue an enforcement order. If the party against whom enforcement is sought is located within the United States, service of process is generally swift; if located abroad, service may need to be effected via the Hague Service Convention, which could result in a delay of 3 to 6 months. When proceedings are smooth, documentation is complete, service is timely, and there are no substantial defenses, New York courts often confirm and enforce the arbitral award within a matter of months, typically without the need for an oral hearing.
（五）如果有异议，登记和执行外国民商事判决或提交申请确认和执行仲裁裁决大约需要多长时间？
What is the approximate time required to recognize and enforce a foreign civil and commercial judgment or to petition to confirm and enforce a foreign arbitration award if opposed?
如果被申请人在纽约州对外国民商事判决的承认和执行过程中提出异议，那么该程序将实质转化为《外国国家金钱判决承认法》CPLR第53条项下之对抗性诉讼。此举可能大幅延长进程，因法院须审查被申请人的抗辩主张—例如欺诈、管辖权瑕疵、否认正当程序或违反公共政策—并可能准许证据开示或证据提交。整体时长高度取决于具体事实和争议事项的复杂性，抗辩性质、证据开示之范围以及法院案量负担。因此，难以精确预估时间，且个案差异显著。
If a respondent raises objections during the enforcement of a foreign civil or commercial judgment in New York State, the proceeding effectively transitions into adversarial litigation under CPLR Article 53. This can substantially extend the process, as New York courts must evaluate the defenses asserted—such as fraud, lack of jurisdiction, denial of due process, or public policy—and may allow discovery or evidentiary submissions. The overall duration is highly fact-specific and depends on the complexity of the issues, the nature of the defenses, the scope of discovery, and the court’s docket. As a result, the timeline is difficult to predict with precision and can vary significantly from case to case.
在对外国判决承认和执行提出异议的案件中，常见的抗辩理由包括但不限于以下几类：
外国法院缺乏对被告的个人或属事管辖权；
- 判决违反美国或纽约州的基本正当程序（due process）原则；
- 判决是出于欺诈取得；
- 判决内容违反纽约州的重大公共政策；
- 该判决尚未在外国成为最终判决或不可执行；
- 判决涉及惩罚性赔偿、税务、行政或刑事事项（通常不被承认）；
- 没有满足互惠条件（尽管如前所述，这通常不是唯一或决定性因素）。
Common grounds for objecting to recognize and enforce foreign judgments include, but are not limited to: - The foreign court lacked personal or subject-matter jurisdiction over the defendant;
- The judgment violates fundamental due process principles of the United States or New York State;
- The judgment was obtained by fraud;
- The judgment contravenes New York State's significant public policy;
- The judgment has not yet become final or enforceable in the foreign jurisdiction;
- The judgment involves punitive damages, tax, administrative, or criminal matters (which are generally unrecognized);
- The reciprocity conditions for enforcement were not satisfied (though as noted earlier, this is rarely the sole or determinant factor).
一旦提出这些抗辩，法院将要求双方提交答辩状、动议、反对意见，可能还需要安排证人陈述、专家意见和书面证据。部分案件还会进入证据开示程序（discovery），包括传唤文档、询问、证人证词等，进一步拉长诉讼时间。
Once such defenses are raised, the court will require the parties to submit pleadings, motions, and objections, and may schedule witness statements, expert reports, and documentary evidence. Some cases may also proceed to discovery, including document production, depositions, and witness testimony, further prolonging the litigation.
此外，法院还可能安排口头辩论或听证程序，特别是在涉及程序正义、司法互惠或公共政策冲突的情形下。最后法院将就判决是否被承认作出裁定，败诉方可能还会上诉，从而再次延长执行周期。
Additionally, the court may order oral arguments or hearings, particularly in cases involving procedural justice, judicial reciprocity, or conflicts of public policy. Ultimately, New York courts will issue a ruling on whether to recognize the judgment, and the losing party may appeal, further extending the enforcement timeline.
综上所述，在有异议的情况下，执行外国民商事判决在纽约通常至少需要6个月以上，复杂案件可能延长至18或24个月甚至更久，尤其是在涉及高争议性、跨境调查或特殊公共政策问题时。
In summary, when objections are raised, enforcing a foreign civil or commercial judgment in New York generally takes at least 6 months. Complex cases may extend to 18 or 24 months or longer, especially those involving high-controversy disputes, cross-border investigations, or novel public policy issues.
如在纽约州，如果被执行人就外国仲裁裁决提出异议，登记和执行程序将转入对抗性审理，时间显著延长，通常需要6个月至2年不等，具体取决于异议理由的复杂性、证据提交的完整性、法院审理进度以及是否存在上诉等程序。
Similarly, if a respondent objects to the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in New York State, the registration and enforcement process will shift to adversarial proceedings, significantly delaying the timeline. The duration typically ranges from 6 months to 2 years, depending on the complexity of the objections, the completeness of evidence submitted, court processing speed, and whether appeals or other procedural steps are involved.
根据《纽约公约》第五条以及《联邦仲裁法》第207条，被执行人可提出一系列有限的抗辩理由，如仲裁协议无效、裁决程序不符合法律规定、未给予适当通知、裁决超越仲裁权限、仲裁程序或裁决与美国公共政策相抵触等。一旦提出这些异议，法院将要求双方提交书面意见、相关证据，必要时还可能安排听证或审理动议。这些程序包括事实调查、法律论证以及对外国法律适用的专家意见，均可能显著延长审理周期。
Under Article V of the New York Convention and Section 207 of the Federal Arbitration Act, respondents may raise limited grounds for objection, such as: the arbitration agreement was invalid; the arbitration proceedings did not comply with legal requirements; the party was not given proper notice; the award exceeded the arbitration’s scope; or the arbitration process or award conflicts with U.S. public policy. Upon raising such objections, the court will require the parties to file written submissions and relevant evidence, and may schedule hearings or trials on procedural motions. These proceedings—including fact-finding, legal argumentation, and expert testimony on foreign law—can substantially protract the timeline.
此外，若异议涉及仲裁地法院正在审查或撤销该裁决，美国法院通常会裁量性地考虑是否中止执行程序，直至外国法院审理完毕，这类情形下的延期尤为常见。若案件进入上诉阶段，则整个程序可能进一步延长至两年甚至更久。因此，在存在实质性异议的情况下，外国仲裁裁决在纽约的执行时间具有较大的不确定性和弹性，且伴随相应的法律成本和程序负担。
Furthermore, if the objection involves a pending challenge or annulment of the award in the seat of arbitration, U.S. courts often exercise discretion to stay enforcement proceedings until the foreign court resolves the matter, which is a common source of delay. If the case proceeds to appeal, the timeline may extend to 2 years or more. Consequently, when substantive objections are raised, the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in New York is marked by significant uncertainty and flexibility, accompanied by corresponding legal costs and procedural burdens.
（六）登记和执行外国民商事判决或提交申请确认和执行外国仲裁裁决大概有哪些费用？
What kind of fees may be paid to recognize and enforce a foreign civil and commercial judgment or the cost of petitioning to confirm and enforce a foreign arbitration award?
通常主要包括法院费用、律师费用、文书翻译及认证费用、送达费用以及其他行政支出。
The costs typically include court fees, attorney fees, document translation and authentication expenses, service of process costs, and other administrative expenditures. The primary cost components and their estimated ranges are outlined below:
执行的总费用具体数额取决于律师参与程度、文书处理复杂度以及送达方式是否涉及跨境程序。若无争议，程序顺畅且文件齐全，该类案件通常可在较低成本下完成。
In the situation where there is no objection, the total enforcement costs depend on the level of attorney involvement, the complexity of document processing, and whether cross-border procedures are required for service. If unopposed, proceedings are unobstructed and documentation is complete, such cases can often be resolved at a lower cost .
如有异议，执行程序将进入对抗性诉讼阶段，费用将显著上升。具体费用取决于案件复杂程度、异议理由的性质、证据提交与抗辩所需的工作量，以及是否涉及听证、专家意见或上诉程序等。
If objections are raised to the registration and enforcement of a foreign civil or commercial judgment or a foreign arbitral award, the enforcement proceedings will transition to an adversarial litigation phase, significantly increasing the associated costs. The specific expenses vary depending on the case’s complexity, the nature of the objections, the workload required for evidence submission and rebuttal, and whether hearings, expert testimony, or appellate proceedings are involved
（七）执行外国民商事判决或外国仲裁裁决是否存在特殊困难？
Are there any unusual difficulties in enforcing a foreign civil and commercial judgment or in confirming and enforcing a foreign arbitration award?
尽管在纽约州承认与执行外国民商事判决在法律上可行，但在实际操作中仍可能面临重大挑战。该等困难在判决系缺席取得且被告未被合法送达之情形下尤为突出。更广泛来看，障碍通常出现在程序、证据、跨境执行协助以及被申请人抗辩等方面，具体包括以下几点：
While the enforcement of foreign civil or commercial judgments in New York State is legally feasible, practical implementation may still encounter significant challenges. These difficulties are particularly pronounced where the judgment was obtained by default and the defendant was not properly served. More broadly, the challenges tend to arise in procedural, evidentiary, cross-border enforcement coordination, and respondent defense aspects, as outlined below:
第一，送达程序较复杂。如果被执行方在外国，申请人必须依据《海牙送达公约》或其他国际法律规定完成跨境送达。不同国家在执行海牙公约的具体做法、所需时间和材料要求差异较大，有时送达过程可长达数月，甚至因政治或法律制度不兼容而遭拒绝。
First, complex service of process procedures. If the judgment debtor is located abroad, the applicant must effect cross-border service in accordance with the Hague Service Convention or other international legal requirements. The specific practices, timelines, and documentation requirements for implementing the Hague Convention vary significantly across countries. In some cases, service may take months, or even be refused due to political or legal system incompatibilities.
第二，对外国判决的内容与形式要求较高。纽约法院要求外国判决必须为“最终的金钱判决”，具有可执行性（final and conclusive money judgment）。若原判决涉及禁令、特定履行、惩罚性赔偿、税务或刑事内容，将可能被法院拒绝承认。此外，申请人需提供经认证的英文翻译，以及证明判决在外国已生效并无待决上诉。
Second, stringent requirements regarding the content and form of foreign judgments. New York courts mandate that foreign judgments must be "final and conclusive money judgments" with enforceability. Judgments involving injunctions, specific performance, punitive damages, tax or criminal matters are likely to be denied recognition. Additionally, applicants must provide a certified English translation and proof that the judgment has become final and enforceable in the foreign jurisdiction with no pending appeals.
第三，存在公共政策抗辩的不确定性。即使判决表面上合法有效，被执行人仍可能主张其内容或程序违反纽约州的“重大公共政策”，例如缺乏公平审判机会、违背言论自由或程序性正当原则等。法院会基于自由裁量权审查该类抗辩，有时该标准具有主观性。
Third, uncertainty in public policy defenses. Even if a judgment appears legally valid, the judgment debtor may argue that its content or proceedings violate New York State’s "significant public policy," such as lack of fair trial opportunities, infringement on freedom of speech, or breaches of procedural due process. Courts exercise discretion in reviewing such defenses, and this standard can be subjective.
第四，对“互惠”标准的事实认定有一定难度。虽然纽约并不要求形式上的互惠安排，但法院仍需评估对方国家是否“实质性地”承认美国判决。这一标准可能需要提供外国法律、法院实践、专家证言，增加举证成本。
Fourth, challenges in factual determination of "reciprocity" standards. Although New York does not require a formal reciprocal arrangement, New York courts must still assess whether the foreign jurisdiction "substantially" recognizes U.S. judgments. This standard may necessitate submitting evidence of foreign laws, court practices, or even expert testimony, increasing the burden of proof.
第五，资产执行有一定难度。即使纽约法院承认并执行了外国判决，申请人仍需通过强制执行程序（如查封银行账户、扣押财产）来实现债权。若被执行人名下无可执行资产，或资产隐藏、转移、设立信托、注册在第三方名下，执行过程将变得更加困难，甚至需另行提起欺诈转移诉讼（fraudulent conveyance claim）。
Fifth, difficulties in asset enforcement. Even if a foreign judgment is recognized and enforced by a New York court, the applicant must still effectuate recovery through enforcement proceedings (e.g., freezing bank accounts, seizing assets). If the judgment debtor has no identifiable enforceable assets, or if assets are hidden, transferred, held in trust, or registered under third parties’ names, the enforcement process becomes significantly more arduous, potentially requiring separate fraudulent conveyance claims.
第六，在费用和整体时间上可能对当事人产生压力。如前述，整个申请、审查、送达及执行过程可能持续数月至一年以上，并伴随较高律师费、翻译费及送达成本，尤其在对方提出抗辩的情形下，对申请人的财务与时间资源构成压力。
Sixth, financial and temporal pressures on parties. As noted, the entire process of application, review, service, and enforcement may span months to over a year, accompanied by high attorney fees, translation costs, and service expenses. This is particularly burdensome for applicants when the respondent raises objections, straining both financial and time resources.
在纽约州执行外国仲裁裁决总体上具有法律基础稳固、程序明确、法院态度支持的优势，尤其是在《纽约公约》和《联邦仲裁法》第九章的框架下，法院倾向于承认并执行有效的外国仲裁裁决。然而，在实际操作中仍存在若干特殊困难，特别是在被执行人提出异议、仲裁程序存在瑕疵，或涉跨境因素较多的情况下。以下是几类主要的实务难点：
Enforcing foreign arbitral awards in New York State generally benefits from a solid legal foundation, clear procedural rules, and courts’ supportive stance—particularly under the framework of the New York Convention and Chapter 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act, where courts incline to recognize and enforce valid foreign arbitral awards. Nevertheless, practical implementation still faces several special challenges, especially when the judgment debtor raises objections, the arbitration process has flaws, or the case involves significant cross-border elements. Below are key practical difficulties:
第一，异议抗辩标准虽狭窄但可操作性强。根据《纽约公约》第五条，被执行人可以提出有限抗辩理由，如仲裁协议无效、未被适当通知仲裁程序、仲裁庭的组成或仲裁程序不符合当事人之间的约定、裁决超出仲裁权限、程序违反仲裁地法律、裁决尚未生效或被撤销、裁决违反美国公共政策等。这些抗辩虽然在法律上设定较高门槛，但在实务中，特别是涉及外国法制度或仲裁程序不透明的案件中，法院仍需花费大量时间审查材料与事实，将极大地延误执行。
First, while the grounds for objection are narrow, they are highly actionable. Under Article V of the New York Convention, respondents may raise limited defenses, such as invalidity of the arbitration agreement, failure to receive proper notice of the arbitration proceedings, the composition of the tribunal or arbitral procedure not conforming to the parties’ agreement, the award exceeding the arbitration’s scope, procedural violations of the lex arbitri (the law governing the arbitration), the award not yet being final or having been set aside, or the award conflicting with U.S. public policy. Although these defenses are legally stringent, in practice—particularly in cases involving foreign legal systems or opaque arbitration procedures—New York courts still must spend considerable time reviewing materials and facts which can significantly delay enforcement.
第二，外国仲裁地法院正在撤销或暂停裁决的案件可能引发程序中止。美国法院享有自由裁量权是否暂缓执行，但若外国法院程序仍在进行，尤其在仲裁地法院已受理撤销申请的情况下，纽约法院可能选择等待外国法院裁决结果，从而导致执行程序中断或延期。
Second, cases where the foreign seat of arbitration’s court is considering setting aside or staying the award may trigger procedural stays. U.S. courts have discretion to decide whether to stay enforcement, but if foreign court proceedings are ongoing—especially if the seat court has accepted an application to set aside the award—New York courts may opt to await the foreign court’s decision, resulting in interruptions or delays in the enforcement process.
第三，证明仲裁裁决有效性的证据负担可能较重。申请执行方需提供裁决原件或认证副本、仲裁协议副本、宣誓翻译以及关于仲裁程序合法性、正当性、完整性的佐证文件。在部分非英美法国家或仲裁机构中，程序文书的制作标准不一，可能导致文件不全、认证难度高，增加申请成本。
Third, the evidentiary burden to prove the validity of the arbitral award may be substantial. The applicant must provide the original award or a certified copy, a copy of the arbitration agreement, a sworn translation, and supporting documents demonstrating the lawfulness, regularity, and completeness of the arbitration process. In some non-common law jurisdictions or with certain arbitration institutions, inconsistent standards for preparing procedural documents may lead to incomplete records or heightened authentication challenges, increasing the applicant’s costs.
第四，公共政策抗辩的不确定性。虽然纽约法院普遍对公共政策抗辩采取狭义解释，仅在极端情况下才予以采纳（例如程序腐败、违反根本公平原则等），但在某些涉及外资限制、政府管控或强制性法律的仲裁案件中，法院仍可能基于美国或纽约州的法律原则否定裁决的执行。
Fourth, uncertainty in public policy defenses. While New York courts generally adopt a narrow interpretation of public policy defenses, recognizing them only in extreme circumstances (e.g., procedural corruption or violations of fundamental fairness), in certain arbitration cases involving restrictions on foreign investment, government regulation, or mandatory laws, courts may still decline enforcement based on U.S. or New York State legal principles.
（八）在纽约州可以承认和执行的外国民商事判决类型有哪些？
Which types of foreign civil and commercial judgments can be recognized and enforced in the jurisdiction of New York State?
在纽约州司法管辖区，可以被承认和执行的外国民商事判决类型主要限于“具有最终性、确定性并可强制执行的金钱判决”。这类判决包括合同违约、侵权行为、债务偿还、股东纠纷及国际贸易付款等案件中要求支付金钱的裁判结果。判决必须由对案件和当事人具备合法属人和属事管辖权的法院作出，并且判决程序必须符合正当程序原则，确保当事人获得通知与辩护的机会。
Within the jurisdiction of New York State, the types of foreign civil or commercial judgments eligible for recognition and enforcement are primarily limited to "monetary judgments that are final, conclusive, and enforceable." Such judgments include monetary awards in cases involving breach of contract, tortious conduct, debt repayment, shareholder disputes, and international trade payments. To qualify, the judgment must have been rendered by a court possessing lawful personal jurisdiction over the parties and subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute, and the proceedings must have complied with due process principles, ensuring that the parties received notice and an opportunity to be heard.
通常，不具备可执行性质的非金钱性判决（如禁令、特定履行命令、宣告性判决）、刑事或行政罚款类判决、显失公平的惩罚性赔偿判决，以及部分涉及监护权或探视安排的家庭法裁定，均不会在纽约获得承认与执行。此外，即便判决在形式上不属于“金钱判决”，但如其实质为要求支付特定金额，法院亦可能予以执行。
Generally, non-monetary judgments lacking enforceable characteristics—such as injunctions, specific performance orders, declaratory judgments; criminal or administrative fine orders; excessively punitive damages awards; and certain family law decrees involving custody or visitation arrangements—are not recognized or enforced in New York. Additionally, even if a judgment does not formally qualify as a "monetary judgment," courts may still enforce it if its substantive effect is to require payment of a specific sum.
（九）在被执行人财产调查方面有什么做法和渠道？
What are the practices and channels for investigating the properties of the judgment debtor?
在纽约州司法实践中，为实现外国民商事判决或仲裁裁决的实际执行，关键在于对被执行人（judgment debtor）财产的有效调查与识别。纽约州提供了较为灵活且程序化的财产调查机制，配合法院强制措施，使申请执行外国判决的当事人可以依法查找、控制并处置被执行人在纽约州境内的资产。律师在该过程中扮演核心角色，主要从以下几个方面入手：
In New York State judicial practice, the key to effectively enforcing foreign civil or commercial judgments or arbitral awards lies in the thorough investigation and identification of the judgment debtor’s assets. New York provides a flexible, proceduralized mechanism for asset investigation, complemented by court-enforced measures, enabling parties seeking to enforce foreign judgments to lawfully locate, secure, and dispose of the judgment debtor’s assets within New York. Attorneys play a central role in this process, focusing on the following key aspects:
首先，依据《纽约民事诉讼法与规则》（CPLR）第5223条和第5224条，胜诉方（即判决申请人）在获得判决后，即可依法启动“强制执行前调查程序”（post-judgment discovery）。此类调查可针对被执行人本人，也可针对第三方，如银行、雇主、业务伙伴等持有、控制或知悉被执行人资产情况的机构和个人。律师可以代表申请人通过法院发出书面信息要求（information subpoenas）、口头质询（depositions）以及文件调取命令（document subpoenas），以获取银行账户信息、不动产登记、公司持股、收入记录、应收账款和其他财产信息。
First, initiating post-judgment discovery under CPLR Articles 5223 and 5224. Upon obtaining a judgment, the prevailing party (i.e., the judgment creditor) may lawfully commence "post-judgment discovery." This investigation may target the judgment debtor directly or third parties—such as banks, employers, or business partners—who hold, control, or have knowledge of the debtor’s assets. Attorneys, on behalf of the creditor, can use court-issued tools including information subpoenas (written requests for information), depositions (oral examinations), and document subpoenas (commands to produce records) to obtain details about bank accounts, real property registrations, corporate shareholdings, income records, accounts receivable, and other asset-related information.
其次，律师通常会利用公开数据库及政府登记系统开展初步调查，包括但不限于纽约州财政部、地方法院档案、纽约市地产业主登记系统（ACRIS）、企业登记（Department of State Division of Corporations），以及联邦破产记录等。这些数据库可协助识别公司或个人名下的不动产、公司股权、诉讼资产或担保权利。此外，律师也可委托私家调查员进行实地调查、商业信用评估或网络追踪，以发现隐藏财产或转移路径。
Second, conducting preliminary investigations using public databases and government registries. Attorneys typically leverage resources such as the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, local court records, the Automated City Register Information System (ACRIS) (New York City’s real property ownership registry), the New York State Department of State’s Division of Corporations (for business registrations), and federal bankruptcy records. These databases help identify real estate, corporate equity, litigious assets, or security interests under the name of a company or individual. Additionally, attorneys may engage private investigators to conduct on-site investigations, commercial credit checks, or online traces to uncover hidden assets or transfer trails.
对于资产隐藏、恶意转移或虚假资产结构的情况，律师还可通过“欺诈性转移调查”程序（fraudulent conveyance action）对可疑交易进行挑战，并申请法院发出临时冻结令（restraining order）或扣押令（attachment order），防止资产流失。
Third, challenging hidden or fraudulent asset transfers. In cases involving hidden assets, malicious transfers, or artificial asset structures, attorneys may initiate a fraudulent conveyance action to challenge suspicious transactions. They can also seek court orders such as restraining orders (to freeze assets temporarily) or attachment orders (to seize assets) to prevent dissipation of assets.
此外，如被执行人在外国拥有资产，但在纽约没有明显可执行财产，律师可基于“认定性判决”（recognition judgment）在纽约确认判决后，再向外国法院申请执行，或通过跨境合作机制与其他司法辖区配合资产调查。
Fourth, pursuing cross-border enforcement or recognition. If the judgment debtor holds assets abroad but has no readily enforceable assets in New York, attorneys may first obtain a recognition judgment in New York confirming the foreign judgment, then seek enforcement in the relevant foreign jurisdiction. Alternatively, they may collaborate with other jurisdictions through cross-border cooperation mechanisms to facilitate asset investigation.
（十）执行外国民商事判决或仲裁裁决的律师收费框架和标准是什么？可否风险代理？
What is the framework and standard for attorneys' fees for the enforcement of foreign civil and commercial judgments or foreign arbitration awards? Is contingency fee possible?
•按小时收费;
•Billed hourly;
•可风险代理（contingency fee），但需明确协议条款。
•May be structured on a contingency fee basis (contingency fee), provided that such arrangements are explicitly set forth in a written agreement.
时效 LIMITATION
（十一）申请登记外国民商事判决或提交申请确认和执行外国仲裁裁决的诉讼时效是多久？
What is that limitation period for initiating an enforcement action for a foreign civil and commercial judgement or a foreign arbitration award?
根据纽约州法，提起诉讼以承认与执行外国民事或商事金钱判决的诉讼时效，通常取决于如何提出索赔：
Under New York law, the statute of limitations for bringing an action to enforce a foreign civil or commercial money judgment generally depends on how the claim is framed:
20年诉讼时效（CPLR第53条项下之默认规则）:外国判决之承认与执行受CPLR第53条（统一外国国家金钱判决承认法）管辖。一经获承认，外国判决将被视为纽约州判决。因此，依据CPLR §211(b)之规定，“基于判决的诉讼”须自该判决可执行之日起20年内提起。该规则为纽约州法院适用的标准规则（如：Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v. Saad Trading, Contracting & Financial Services Co., 117 A.D.3d 609 [第一上诉庭2014]）。
20-Year Limitation (Default Rule under CPLR Article 53): Enforcement of a foreign judgment is governed by CPLR Article 53 (Uniform Foreign Country Money Judgments Recognition Act). Once recognized, a foreign judgment is treated as if it were a New York judgment. Accordingly, under CPLR §211(b), "an action upon a judgment" must be commenced within 20 years from the date the judgment became enforceable. This is the standard rule applied by New York courts (e.g., Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v. Saad Trading, Contracting & Financial Services Co., 117 A.D.3d 609 [1st Dep’t 2014]).
6年诉讼时效（合同执行理论）：在某些情形下，外国判决债权人可能选择不依据第53条主张，而是将外国判决视为产生默示合同义务—本质上，即债务人承诺支付裁决金额。在此框架下，纽约法院根据CPLR §213(2)适用合同诉讼的6年时效。这种处理反映了较早的判例法（第53条颁布前），当时对外国判决的起诉被类比为合同或债务义务的起诉。 尽管在第53条颁布后，这种合同构架已不太常见，但如果债权人通过合同性诉因而非依据第53条寻求执行，则6年时效仍可适用。
6-Year Limitation (Contractual Theory of Enforcement): In some cases, a foreign judgment creditor may choose to proceed not under Article 53, but by treating the foreign judgment as giving rise to an implied contractual obligation — essentially, that the debtor promised to pay the adjudicated sum. In that scenario, New York courts have applied the 6-year statute of limitations for contract actions under CPLR §213(2). This approach reflects older case law (pre-Article 53), when suing on a foreign judgment was analogized to suing on a contract or debt obligation. While this contractual framing is less common after the enactment of Article 53, the 6-year limit can still apply if a creditor pursues enforcement via a contract-based cause of action rather than under Article 53.
《纽约公约》下外国（非美国）仲裁裁决：外国仲裁裁决在纽约州的执行受《联邦仲裁法》（FAA）第2章（9 U.S.C. §§ 201–208）管辖，该章纳入了《纽约公约》。根据《纽约公约》U.S.C. §207 之规定，对裁决的确认申请须于裁决作出之日起三年内提出。上述三年期间专门适用于外国仲裁裁决，即在其他《纽约公约》缔约国作出的仲裁裁决。
Foreign (Non-U.S.) Arbitral Awards under the New York Convention: Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in New York is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), Chapter 2 (9 U.S.C. §§ 201–208), which incorporates the New York Convention.U.S.C §207 provides that an application for confirmation must be made within 3 years after the award is made. This 3-year period applies specifically to foreign arbitral awards, i.e., those rendered in another Convention state.
执行程序 ENFORCEMENT
（十二）在本地执行外国民商事判决或仲裁裁决需提供哪些文件？
What papers will be needed for the enforcement of a foreign judgement or a foreign arbitration award?
•判决/裁决的正式副本及公证文书；
•Official copies of the judgment/arbitral award and notarized documents;
•英文翻译件（经认证）；
•Certified English translation;
•执行申请书及律师支持宣誓书；
•Application for enforcement and affidavit of attorney support;
•对方送达证明及法院申请材料副本。
•Proof of service on the opposing party and copies of court application materials.
（十三）执行外国民商事判决或仲裁裁决的一般流程与方式有哪些？
What is the general procedure and methods to enforce a foreign civil and commercial judgement or a foreign arbitration award?
流程：提交确认与执行申请（CPLR Article 53或FAA程序）→法院裁定→执行。
执行方式包括：
•账户扣押；
•工资扣押；
•不动产查封与押记令；
•强制拍卖；
•债务人讯问；
•清算令申请等。
Process: Filing an application for confirmation and enforcement (under CPLR Article 53 or FAA procedures) → Issuance of a court order → Enforcement. Enforcement methods include:
•Levy on bank accounts;
•Wage garnishment;
•Lien or charge on real property;
•Compulsory auction;
•Examination of the judgment debtor;
•Application for a winding-up order (or insolvency proceedings).
（十四）如何取回执行费用和成本？
How to recover all fees and costs of enforcement?
如原判决已载明费用可追偿，法院通常批准；在没有明确约定时，部分执行费用可纳入判决金额申请；纽约法院通常不将外国执行费用列入判决金额。相反，在纽约州胜诉的判决债权人可依纽约程序法（例如CPLR §8301及以下）主张判后执行费用，但该等费用很有限（如立案费、送达费、警长执行费用等）。此等费用并不当然并入外国判决。
If the original judgment specifies that costs are recoverable, courts generally grant such requests; In the absence of explicit agreement, certain enforcement costs may be included in the claim for the judgment amount; New York courts generally do not add foreign enforcement costs into the judgment amount. Instead, a successful judgment creditor in New York may recover post-judgment enforcement costs under New York procedure (e.g., CPLR §8301 et seq.), but those are limited (filing fees, service costs, sheriff’s fees, etc.). They are not automatically merged into the foreign judgment.
律师费是否可追回视具体判决条款及法院裁量。律师费原则上不可追回，除非：外国判决已明示裁判给付律师费，当事人之间的合同约定可主张律师费，或法律明文授权。
The recoverability of attorney fees depends on the specific terms of the judgment and judicial discretion. Attorney’s fees are not recoverable in New York unless: the foreign judgment expressly awards them, a contract between the parties provides for them, or a statute authorizes them.
关于本问卷中时间/费用估算的说明：
然而，时间和费用的估算是基于对方完全配合相关法律程序的假设，而这种情况在实践中很少发生。即使没有异议，执行工作也有可能会因立法变化或手续繁琐而面临预测以外的延误。此外，由于本法院的诉讼具有对抗性，当涉及诉讼时，相关法律程序的实际持续时间和费用取决于当事人的诉讼策略。因此，几乎不可能提供一个通用但准确的费用/时间估算。客户应寻求逐案评估，以获得更具体准确的估算。
*Note regarding time/cost estimates throughout this questionnaire:
All time/cost estimates are based on the assumption that the other party fully cooperates with the relevant legal procedures, which rarely happens in practice. Even without opposition, enforcement can face unexpected delays due to changing legislation or bureucratic hold-ups. Additionally, as litigation in this jurisdiction is adversarial in nature, when litigation is involved, the actual time and costs of the relevant legal procedures are in large part determined by the parties' litigation strategies. As such, it is almost impossible to provide a general but accurate cost/time estimate, and clients should instead seek a case-by-case evaluation for more specifically accurate estimates.
德恒香港办公室实习生朱凯莹对本文的写作亦有贡献。