From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Indosuez Intl. v. National Reserve Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 8, 1999
263 A.D.2d 384 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

July 8, 1999.

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 has commenced against plaintiff in Russia, or from instituting any other such actions, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

PRESENT: Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Tom, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.


The IAS Court properly exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs 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 A.D.2d 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 N.Y. 682).

Motion seeking to find defendant guilty of contempt of court and for other related relief denied.


Summaries of

Indosuez Intl. v. National Reserve Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jul 8, 1999
263 A.D.2d 384 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Indosuez Intl. v. National Reserve Bank

Case Details

Full title:INDOSUEZ INTERNATIONAL FINANCE B.V., Appellant, v. NATIONAL RESERVE BANK…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Jul 8, 1999

Citations

263 A.D.2d 384 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
693 N.Y.S.2d 33

Citing Cases

ACE FIRE UNDERWRITERS INS. v. ITT INDUSTRIES

The ACE Insurers contend that an injunction barring ITT from further prosecuting the California 354 Action is…