From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Leake v. Lynch, Pierce

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 2, 1995
213 A.D.2d 155 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

March 2, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.).


State courts are without power to restrain Federal court proceedings in in personam actions (Donovan v. City of Dallas, 377 U.S. 408, 412-413; see also, General Atomic Co. v. Felter, 434 U.S. 12, 17; General Atomic Co. v. Felter, 436 U.S. 493, 497; Cone Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 21, n 24). We therefore vacate the injunction granted by the trial court, which was based upon a misperception of the breadth of the holding in Cone (supra), and violative of the Supremacy Clause of United States Constitution, article VI, § 2.

In addition, the trial court erred by not entertaining, and granting Merrill Lynch's application for a preliminary injunction (CPLR 7502 [c]; see, Blumenthal v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith, 910 F.2d 1049), due to the likelihood of the respondent's success on the merits, given the nature of the employment and non-solicitation agreements, the waiver signed by the petitioner, and the prejudice which would flow from denying this relief.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Ross, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Leake v. Lynch, Pierce

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 2, 1995
213 A.D.2d 155 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Leake v. Lynch, Pierce

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of TODD LEAKE, Respondent, v. MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER…

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

Date published: Mar 2, 1995

Citations

213 A.D.2d 155 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
623 N.Y.S.2d 220

Citing Cases

Weingarten v. B.O.E. of City SCH Dist. of N.Y.

Pursuant to CPLR 7502(c), in granting an injunction in aid of arbitration, the Court must consider first,…

SG Cowen Securities Corp. v. Messih

Notwithstanding those decisions, New York caselaw is at best ambivalent about whether or not Section 7502(c)…