Vandervoort v. M. V. Effort, Inc.

New York Supreme Court

Vandervoort v. M. V. Effort, Inc.

50 Misc. 2d 633, 270 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2084

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 18, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 Misc. 2d 633 (Vandervoort v. M. V. Effort, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vandervoort v. M. V. Effort, Inc., 50 Misc. 2d 633, 270 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2084 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Mario Pittoni, J.

Defendant, Geraldine C. Ridings, commenced a proceeding in the United States District Court to foreclose a preferred mortgage upon the vessel M. V. Effort, pursuant to section 951 of title 46 of the United States Code, wherein it states: “ Upon the default of any term or condition of the mortgage, such lien may be enforced by the mortgagee by suit in rem in admiralty. Original jurisdiction of all such suits is granted to the district courts of the United States exclusively. ” (Emphasis supplied.)

A State court should not, in an action pending therein, stay or restrain a party therein from proceeding with or in an action in a Federal court (Penn Co. v. Pennsylvania, 294 U. S. 189,195; Beardslee v. Ingraham, 183 N. Y. 411, 417; Admiral Corp. v. Reines Distr., 9 A D 2d 410, affd. 8 N Y 2d 773; Star Constr. Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 12 A D 2d 738).

The cases cited by plaintiff concern themselves with stays to enforce contractual obligations between parties to arbitrate their differences. There is no such contractual obligation alleged in this action. Plaintiff has failed to show a clear legal right warranting the drastic relief requested on this motion. This motion must be denied.

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

Mario Pittoni, J.

Defendant, Geraldine C. Ridings, commenced a proceeding in the United States District Court to foreclose a preferred mortgage upon the vessel M. V. Effort, pursuant to section 951 of title 46 of the United States Code, wherein it states: “ Upon the default of any term or condition of the mortgage, such lien may be enforced by the mortgagee by suit in rem in admiralty. Original jurisdiction of all such suits is granted to the district courts of the United States exclusively. ” (Emphasis supplied.)

A State court should not, in an action pending therein, stay or restrain a party therein from proceeding with or in an action in a Federal court (Penn Co. v. Pennsylvania, 294 U. S. 189,195; Beardslee v. Ingraham, 183 N. Y. 411, 417; Admiral Corp. v. Reines Distr., 9 A D 2d 410, affd. 8 N Y 2d 773; Star Constr. Corp. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 12 A D 2d 738).

The cases cited by plaintiff concern themselves with stays to enforce contractual obligations between parties to arbitrate their differences. There is no such contractual obligation alleged in this action. Plaintiff has failed to show a clear legal right warranting the drastic relief requested on this motion. This motion must be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 Misc. 2d 633, 270 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2084, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vandervoort-v-m-v-effort-inc-nysupct-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack