Trinity Products, Inc. v. Burgess Steel LLC

18 A.D.3d 318, 795 N.Y.S.2d 40, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5247
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 17, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 318 (Trinity Products, Inc. v. Burgess Steel LLC) 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
Trinity Products, Inc. v. Burgess Steel LLC, 18 A.D.3d 318, 795 N.Y.S.2d 40, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered June 9, 2004, which denied plaintiffs motion to [319]*319stay this action pending resolution of an action in Missouri, or, alternatively, to strike defendants’ counterclaim, unanimously modified, on the law, the motion for a stay granted, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 27, 2004, which, to the extent appealable, denied plaintiffs motion to renew the prior motion, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

In this action to foreclose on a mechanic’s lien, the court abused its discretion in failing to stay this action pending determination of a Missouri federal breach of contract action. Upon “consideration of issues of comity, orderly procedure, and judicial economy,” we find “substantial identity between [the] state and federal actions” (Asher v Abbott Labs., 307 AD2d 211, 211 [2003]). The federal action was commenced first, in good faith, and has been prosecuted with due diligence; furthermore, neither party will suffer undue detriment or gain undue advantage by having that action determined first (see Kayser v Horton, 42 AD2d 839 [1973]), particularly since the Missouri action may well determine the underlying issue here as to whether the lien was wilfully exaggerated.

The counterclaim was stated with sufficient particularity to give notice of the material elements of the claim (CPLR 3013). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

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

Related

Wong v. Pragad
2025 NY Slip Op 25223 (New York Supreme Court, Westchester County, 2025)
H.I.G. Realty Fin. II, LLC v. Kuperwasser
2025 NY Slip Op 30933(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2025)
RDF Agent, LLC v. Electric Red Ventures, LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 02384 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Davis v. Commack Hotel, LLC
2022 NY Slip Op 06905 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Mahar v. General Elec. Co.
New York Supreme Court, 2019
Tribeca Lending Corp. v. Crawford
79 A.D.3d 1018 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
18 A.D.3d 318, 795 N.Y.S.2d 40, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trinity-products-inc-v-burgess-steel-llc-nyappdiv-2005.