## Facts

- Audrey Tamimi (wife), a British citizen, and Adnan Tamimi (husband), an Iraqi national employed by the United Nations, married in New York in 1952 and had two children.
- In 1963 the family moved from New Rochelle, New York, to Thailand for the husband’s employment and leased their New Rochelle home.
- After the move, the children became ill; the wife agreed to take them out of Thailand, and left for England in May 1964 after the husband promised he would later join them.
- In April 1964, the husband filed a divorce action against the wife in the Bangkok Civil Court alleging marital misconduct.
- The wife was personally served in Thailand but did not appear or answer, asserting she relied on assurances from the husband and his lawyer that the divorce action would be discontinued if she proceeded with the plan to take the children to England and then to the United States.
- After the wife and children left Thailand, the husband continued the Thai case and obtained a default divorce decree on August 6, 1964; the wife later received the decree by mail.
- The wife brought an action in New York Supreme Court (Westchester County) seeking separation, support, and a declaration that the Thai divorce decree was null and void.
- After trial, Special Term dismissed the complaint as a matter of law, recognizing the Thai decree on comity grounds based on jurisdiction and the location of the relevant acts.
- The wife appealed; the husband, though represented by counsel at trial, did not testify.

## Issues

1. Whether New York may refuse recognition of a foreign divorce decree, otherwise issued by a court with jurisdiction, when the decree was allegedly procured by extrinsic fraud that induced the spouse to default.
2. Whether alleged misrepresentations that the foreign divorce action would be discontinued, made to keep the spouse from appearing and defending, state a litigable claim warranting adjudication rather than dismissal on comity grounds.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the dismissal and ordered a new trial.
- The court held that the wife’s allegations, if proven, could constitute extrinsic fraud in the procurement of the Thai default divorce decree.
- The court ruled that comity does not require recognition of a foreign judgment where a party presents a litigable claim that the judgment was procured by fraud depriving her of a fair opportunity to defend.
- The court did not declare the Thai divorce invalid on appeal; it remanded for fact-finding on the fraud claim.

## Legal Principles

- Foreign divorce decrees are generally recognized in New York as a matter of comity when rendered by a court with jurisdiction.
- A foreign judgment may be collaterally attacked in New York for fraud in the procurement of the judgment, particularly extrinsic fraud that prevents a party from appearing and being heard.
- Conduct calculated to keep an opposing party away from court so a default judgment may be obtained can qualify as extrinsic fraud.
- A court should not dispose of a challenge to recognition of a foreign judgment as a matter of law when the pleadings and proof raise a materially disputed, legally cognizable claim of extrinsic fraud.

## Conclusion

New York may entertain a collateral attack on a foreign default divorce decree where the challenging spouse alleges extrinsic fraud—such as false assurances designed to prevent her appearance—because comity does not extend to judgments procured by fraud that denied a fair opportunity to defend.


Tamimi v. Tamimi, 38 A.D.2d 197, 328 N.Y.S.2d 477 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1972)