The following e-filed documents listed on NYSCEF (Motion No. 001) numbered 47-58 were read on this motion.

Before the Court is Defendant's motion to quash four subpoenas duces tecum issued at the behest of Plaintiff, all in connection with this matrimonial proceeding pending before the Court. Chief among the subpoenas is one directed to the Central Bank of Egypt—an entity whose records, Plaintiff asserts, are critical to the adjudication of the parties' respective financial [*2]entitlements pursuant to equitable distribution. Defendant resists the enforcement of these subpoenas on grounds ostensibly rooted in jurisdictional impropriety and the extraterritorial nature of the institutions involved.

The parties, HF and AF, are both resident within the jurisdiction of New York. Plaintiff has commenced this action for dissolution of marriage and seeks, inter alia, the equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities. In pursuit of this objective, Plaintiff has caused subpoenas to issue to several institutions, the most notable being the Central Bank of Egypt, seeking production of documents evidencing marital assets held abroad as well as any associated liabilities—materials deemed indispensable to a full and fair adjudication.

Plaintiff grounds her entitlement to such extraterritorial discovery in the provisions of Egyptian law, specifically Article 297, and in the interpretative ethos of the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. Article 297 expressly provides that a request for enforcement of a foreign order may be entertained by the court of the forum where enforcement is sought, irrespective of any contrary provisions in the law of the originating jurisdiction regarding forum competence.

At the core of Defendant's motion lies an appeal to jurisdictional sanctity and sovereign insulation. However, this Court finds Defendant's arguments devoid of legal merit and contrary to the well-settled doctrines of comity, procedural reciprocity, and the public policy of this State favoring full disclosure in matrimonial actions.

It is axiomatic that matrimonial courts in this State wield broad equitable powers, not merely over persons but over property—tangible and intangible, local and foreign—when there exists sufficient jurisdictional contact. Both parties are amenable to the Court's jurisdiction, and thus the Court's reach necessarily extends to all financial records relevant to the marital estate, regardless of their situs.

Article 297 of Egyptian law, as appended to the motion papers and properly translated, evinces a deliberate legislative intent to empower foreign courts, such as this one, to enforce orders without deference to Egyptian forum selection principles. This provision operates not merely as a permissive clause but as an affirmative grant of comity—an acknowledgment that global interconnectedness demands legal permeability where justice so requires. To disregard this provision would not only do violence to the principle of international mutual respect, but also frustrate the fact-finding imperative that animates all equitable distribution proceedings.

Turning to the Hague Convention of 2019, while New York is not yet a formal signatory to the instrument, it is nonetheless instructive as persuasive authority in illuminating the evolving consensus of the international community. The Convention embodies a repudiation of parochialism in favor of judicial cooperation, particularly in civil and commercial matters where transparency and accountability are paramount. The mere invocation of sovereignty cannot serve as a talisman to shield financial records from scrutiny where both necessity and justice compel disclosure.

It is no answer to assert that the Central Bank of Egypt is beyond this Court's grasp. The [*3]subpoenas at issue are not self-executing mandates demanding coercive acts abroad; rather, they constitute a formal request—grounded in due process and judicial oversight—for information essential to the integrity of these proceedings. Compliance is not sought through compulsion but through recognized channels of international cooperation.

To permit Defendant to interpose jurisdictional technicalities as a barricade to transparency would be to elevate form over substance, and procedure over equity. Plaintiff's entitlement to a fair and comprehensive accounting of the marital estate is not merely an aspirational ideal—it is a constitutional guarantee inherent in the fundamental right to due process of law.

Upon the foregoing, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that Defendant's motion to quash the four subpoenas issued by Plaintiff is DENIED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that the subpoenas shall remain in full force and effect, and any objection to compliance shall be addressed in the form of a motion for a protective order, supported by particularized evidence of undue burden or privilege; and it is further

ORDERED, that the parties shall appear before this Court at a date to be fixed by the Clerk for a status conference to monitor compliance and address any ancillary issues relating to the enforcement of the subpoenas and the adjudication of marital assets and liabilities.

The equities of this matter demand no less. This is the Decision and Order of the court. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.