## Facts

- Dorothy Haag (New York resident) alleged that Norman Barnes (Illinois resident) fathered her out-of-wedlock child after a relationship in New York in 1954.
- After the child’s birth in Illinois in 1955, Haag and Barnes executed a written agreement in Illinois in January 1956.
- The agreement was negotiated, drafted, and executed in Illinois by Illinois attorneys while both parties were residing in Illinois.
- The agreement required Barnes to pay $275 per month for support of Haag and the child until the child reached age sixteen and included Haag’s release of all claims against Barnes.
- The agreement expressly provided that Illinois law governed and required the child to remain in Illinois for two years after birth.
- Haag later returned to New York with the child; Barnes remained in Illinois and paid under the agreement, ultimately paying more than his strict contractual obligation.
- In 1959, Haag commenced a New York filiation/support proceeding seeking additional support despite the Illinois agreement.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1956 support agreement’s validity and effect were governed by Illinois law under the parties’ express choice and New York conflicts principles.
2. If Illinois law applied, whether the agreement operated as a complete settlement barring a later New York support proceeding.
3. Whether enforcing the agreement to preclude additional support was contrary to New York public policy protecting support rights of out-of-wedlock children.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of Haag’s New York support petition.
- The court held the agreement was governed by Illinois law based on the parties’ choice and Illinois’ dominant contacts with the transaction.
- Under Illinois law, the agreement was treated as a valid, enforceable settlement and release of further claims for support in the absence of fraud or similar defect.
- New York’s statutory requirements for court-approved support agreements in local filiation proceedings did not invalidate an out-of-state agreement valid where made between nonresidents.
- Enforcing the Illinois agreement did not violate fundamental New York public policy where the settlement provided substantial support and there was no showing the child lacked necessities.

## Legal Principles

- New York generally respects an express contractual choice of law when the chosen jurisdiction has substantial contacts with the transaction and enforcement does not offend a fundamental New York policy.
- A foreign support settlement valid under the governing foreign law may be enforced in New York to bar later support litigation, absent proof of fraud, overreaching, or a strong public-policy conflict.
- New York statutory formalities requiring court approval for certain support agreements are directed primarily to agreements made within New York filiation proceedings and do not automatically control contracts made and governed elsewhere between nonresidents.
- Public-policy nonenforcement is reserved for conflicts with fundamental state policy; it is not triggered merely because New York policy favors support for out-of-wedlock children.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the Illinois choice-of-law support settlement and held it barred a subsequent New York filiation/support proceeding, because Illinois had the primary contractual contacts, Illinois law validated the settlement and release, and enforcement did not contravene fundamental New York public policy.


Haag v. Barnes, 9 N.Y.2d 554 (N.Y. 1961)