Akhmedova v Akhmedov

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Akhmedova v Akhmedov 2020 NY Slip Op 30092(U) January 10, 2020 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 155688/2018 Judge: Debra A. James Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [*FILED: 1] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2020 04:05 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 82 INDEX NO. 155688/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART HON. DEBRA A. JAMES IAS MOTION 59EFM Justice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X TATIANA AKHMEDOVA, INDEX NO. MOTION DATE Plaintiff, 155688/2018 11/13/2019 MOTION SEQ. NO. 003 -vFARKHAD AKHMEDOV, COTOR INVESTMENT, S.A., QUBO 1 ESTABLISHMENT, QUBO 2 ESTABLISHMENT, STRAIGHT ESTABLISHMENT, AVENGER ASSETS CORPORATION, RESETTLED DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION Defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 81 MODIFY ORDER/JUDGMENT were read on this motion to/for ORDER Upon the foregoing documents, it is ORDERED that the Order of this Court dated September 30, 2019, is resettled pursuant to CPLR 5019(a) as follows: 155688/2018 AKHMEDOVA, TATIANA vs. AKHMEDOV, FARKHAD Motion No. 003 1 of 6 Page 1of6 [*FILED: 2] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2020 04:05 PM INDEX NO. 155688/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 82 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2020 TATIANA AKHMEDOVA, Plaintiff, -vFARKHAD AKHMEDOV, COTOR INVESTMENT, S.A., QUBO 1 ESTABLISHMENT, QUBO 2 ESTABLISHMENT, STRAIGHT ESTABLISHMENT, AVENGER ASSETS CORPORATION, Defendant. TATIANA AKHMEDOVA, Plaintiff, -vFARKHAD AKHMEDOV, COTOR INVESTMENT, S.A., QUBO 1 ESTABLISHMENT, QUBO 2 ESTABLISHMENT, STRAIGHT ESTABLISHMENT, AVENGER ASSETS CORPORATION, Defendant. ORDER WHEREAS, ("Plaintiff") on June 15, commenced the 2018 Plaintiff above-captioned defendants Farkhad Akhmedov, Cotor Investment, Establishment, Avenger Assets Qubo Corp. 2 Tatiana Establishment, (collectively, Straight Akhmedova action against S.A., Qubo 1 Establishment "Defendants") for an and order entering judgment pursuant to New York Civil Practice Laws and Rules judgments ( "CPLR") against Article 53, Defendants on the basis of two foreign obtained in the High Court of United Kingdom (the "U.K. Judgments"); and 155688/2018 AKHMEDOVA, TATIANA vs. AKHMEDOV, FARKHAD Motion No. 003 2 of 6 Page 2 of 6 the [*FILED: 3] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2020 04:05 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 82 INDEX NO. 155688/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2020 WHEREAS, on September 30, 2019 the Court granted summary judgment in Plaintiffs favor and against Defendants recognizing the U.K. Judgment dated December 15, 2016 in the amount of US $166,743,728, plus interest at the statutory rate; and WHEREAS, judgment in on September Plaintiffs 30, favor 2019 and the Court against granted defendant summary Straight Establishment recognizing the U.K. Judgment dated March 21, 2018 in the amount of US $487,278,000, plus interest at the statutory rate; it is hereby ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Tatiana Akhmedova shall have judgment and recover from Defendants Farkhad Akhmedov, S.A., Qubo 1 Establishment, Qubo 2 Establishment and Avenger Assets Corp. Cotor Investment, Establishment, Straight (joint and severally), the sum of: 1) us $166, 743, 728; 2) US $37,240,955.36 (8% per annum pre-judgment interest awarded pursuant to the terms of the U.K Judgment, calculated from December 15, 2016 through September 30, 2019); 3) US $550 (statutory costs and disbursements); totaling US $203,985,233.36, plus$ at the statutory rate of 9% from September 30, in interest 2019 at the per diem rate of US $50,297.72 per day, up to and until the 155688/2018 AKHMEDOVA, TATIANA vs. AKHMEDOV, FARKHAD Motion No. 003 3 of 6 Page 3 of 6 [*FILED: 4] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2020 04:05 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 82 date $ INDEX NO. 155688/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2020 of entry of judgment, in all the sum of us - - - - - - - - - - - - - and that Plaintiff have execution thereof; and it is further ADJUDGED that Plaintiff Tatiana Akhmedova shall have judgment and recover from Defendant Straight Establishment the sum of: 1) us $487,278,000; plus $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ in interest at the statutory rate of 9% from September 30, 2019 at the per diem rate of US $120,150.74 per day, up to and until the date of entry of judgment, in all the sum of US $ - - - - - - - - - - - - - and that Plaintiff have execution thereof; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the payments toward either of the foregoing judgments shall reduce pro tanto the amount outstanding on the other judgment; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that post-judgment interest shall run on the above judgments in the amount of 9% per annum pursuant to N.Y. CPLR § 5004 until the date of payment; and it is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this Court reserves jurisdiction over the parties and action to enforce this judgment. DECISION This court finds that plaintiff has sufficiently established that the two foreign money judgments in question, entered by the Family Division of the English High Court, are each final, conclusive and were enforceable when rendered, and 155688/2018 AKHMEDOVA, TATIANA vs. AKHMEDOV, FARKHAD Motion No. 003 4 of 6 Page 4 of 6 [*FILED: 5] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2020 04:05 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 82 INDEX NO. 155688/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2020 that neither of the CPLR §5403(a) mandatory grounds for nonrecognition apply here. Nor have defendants met their burden of persuading the court that it should deny recognition on discretionary grounds. Defendant does not assert that the English judicial system in general fails to protect litigants' due process rights. Instead, he challenges the British tribunal's application of an exception to his attorney client privilege. because CPLR 5304 (a) (1) Such argument fails refers to "a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law", but not to any particular procedure of that tribunal (Harvardsky Prumyslovy Holding, A.S.- V Likvidaci v Kozeny, 166 AD3d 494, 494-495 [l 5 t Dept. 2018] [emphasis supplied] ) . Thus, defendant fails to raise a "non-frivolous" ground for non-recognition, and this court need not ascertain whether it has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. On such basis, this court shall deny defendants' cross motion to dismiss plaintiff's summary judgment motion in lieu of complaint. Likewise, this court agrees with plaintiff that defendant has not come forward with any evidence of a final and conflicting Russian judgment, and therefore, his challenge pursuant to CPLR 5304 (b) (5) lacks any merit. 155688/2018 AKHMEDOVA, TATIANA vs. AKHMEDOV, FARKHAD Motion No. 003 5 of 6 Page 5 of 6 [*FILED: 6] NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/13/2020 04:05 PM NYSCEF DOC. NO. 82 INDEX NO. 155688/2018 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/13/2020 Nor, as argued by plaintiff, is there any merit to defendant's argument that the "cause of action on which the judgment is based is repugnant to public policy of this state" under CPRL 5304(b) (4), as the cause of action underlying the English judgments is simply the equitable distribution of the assets of dissolved marital estate of the parties. This court also finds that, in compelling the testimony of defendant's attorney, the English court did not violate any public policy of New York state, as such compunction was based upon the same analysis and/or exceptions found in New York state law (see, e.g., Matter of Bekins Record Storage Co., Inc. v Morgenthau, 62 NY2d 324, 329 [1984]). 1/10/2020 DEBA. J~M s~J.s.c. DATE CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED GRANTED D DENIED APPLICATION: SEITLE ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN 155688/2018 AKHMEDOVA, TATIANA vs. AKHMEDOV, FARKHAD Motion No. 003 6 of 6 ~ NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED IN PART SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT D D c OTHER REFERENCE Page 6 of 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.