JANAK DATWANI, Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. KISHIN DATWANI, Defendant-res-res

9126. JANAK DATWANI, Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. KISHIN DATWANI, Defendant-res-res — Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti LLP, New York (Thomas M. Kenny of counsel), for appellant-res — Boundas Skarzynski Walsh & Black LLC, New York (James R. Steel of counsel), for res-res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered February 7, 2012, which imposed a sua sponte stay of this action pending a decision on the ownership of the stock shares in question by the High Court of India, and granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from transferring the shares pending the outcome of this action, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the stay of this action and remand to the IAS court to determine an appropriate undertaking for the injunction, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

9126. JANAK DATWANI, Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. KISHIN DATWANI, Defendant-res-res — Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti LLP, New York (Thomas M. Kenny of counsel), for appellant-res — Boundas Skarzynski Walsh & Black LLC, New York (James R. Steel of counsel), for res-res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered February 7, 2012, which imposed a sua sponte stay of this action pending a decision on the ownership of the stock shares in question by the High Court of India, and granted plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining defendant from transferring the shares pending the outcome of this action, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the stay of this action and remand to the IAS court to determine an appropriate undertaking for the injunction, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

It was error for the IAS court to sua sponte impose a stay of this action, as no party requested that relief, and defendant, who would have benefited from the stay, did not even make a motion, cross motion or other application for relief (see HCE Assoc. v. 3000 Watermill Lane Realty Corp., 173 AD2d 774, 774-775 [2d Dept 1991]). Further, resolution of the issues in the related Indian litigations would not be determinative of the dispute here (see Somoza v. Pechnik, 3 AD3d 394 [1st Dept 2004]).

JANAK DATWANI, Plaintiff-Appellant-res, v. KISHIN DATWANI, Defendant-res-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal