Indosuez International Finance B.V. v. National Reserve Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Indosuez International Finance B.V. v. National Reserve Bank

263 A.D.2d 384, 693 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7817

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 8, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 263 A.D.2d 384 (Indosuez International Finance B.V. v. National Reserve Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Indosuez International Finance B.V. v. National Reserve Bank, 263 A.D.2d 384, 693 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7817 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered May 3, 1999, which denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant from prosecuting an action it had commenced against plaintiff in Russia, or from instituting any other such actions, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction since the doctrine of comity militates against staying proceedings previously commenced in a foreign court of competent jurisdiction (see, Sarepa, S.A. v Pepsico, Inc., 225 AD2d 604), and the additional expense and trouble of litigating in a foreign court is insufficient to warrant an injunction (see, Paramount Pictures v Blumenthal, 256 App Div 756, 760, appeal dismissed 281 NY 682).

Motion seeking to find defendant guilty of contempt of court and for other related relief denied. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered May 3, 1999, which denied plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendant from prosecuting an action it had commenced against plaintiff in Russia, or from instituting any other such actions, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction since the doctrine of comity militates against staying proceedings previously commenced in a foreign court of competent jurisdiction (see, Sarepa, S.A. v Pepsico, Inc., 225 AD2d 604), and the additional expense and trouble of litigating in a foreign court is insufficient to warrant an injunction (see, Paramount Pictures v Blumenthal, 256 App Div 756, 760, appeal dismissed 281 NY 682).

Motion seeking to find defendant guilty of contempt of court and for other related relief denied. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 384, 693 N.Y.S.2d 33, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7817, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indosuez-international-finance-bv-v-national-reserve-bank-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack