Lauria v. Kriss

2017 NY Slip Op 1298, 147 A.D.3d 575, 46 N.Y.S.3d 790
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 16, 2017·No. 3149N 152324/14·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered February 25, 2016, which denied plaintiff’s motion for a stay of the proceedings pending resolution of related federal actions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In considering whether to stay an action pursuant to CPLR 2201 in favor of parallel federal proceedings, comity and judicial efficiency may warrant a stay where there is substantial overlap of claims and parties (see Asher v Abbott Labs., 307 AD2d 211 [1st Dept 2003]). Here, however, plaintiff’s description of the federal action in which he is involved with defendant, and the contempt proceedings in which defendant was named, do not sufficiently overlap or show the likelihood of estoppel such that the denial of a stay was an abuse of discretion. This is all the more true given the subsequent dismissal of plaintiff from the parallel federal action and of defendant from the contempt proceedings. There are at present no parallel proceedings upon which to base a stay.

Concur — Richter, J.P., Manzanet-Daniels, Gische, Webber and Kahn, JJ.

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

Lauria v. Kriss, 2017 NY Slip Op 1298, 147 A.D.3d 575, 46 N.Y.S.3d 790 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

2017 NY Slip Op 1298 (Lauria v. Kriss) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

CRI 11 Howard St. LLC v. Soho Hotel Owner LLC
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026
Matter of Qudian Sec. Litig.
2020 NY Slip Op 07290 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)