| Uptown Healthcare Mgt., Inc. v Rivkin Radler LLP |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02870 [116 AD3d 631] |
| April 29, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Uptown Healthcare Management, Inc., Doing Business asEast Tremont Medical Center, Appellant, v Rivkin Radler LLP et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale (Stuart M. Bodoff of counsel), for Rivkin Radler LLP and Barry I. Levy, respondents. Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, New York (Michael I. Verde of counsel), for KattenMuchin Rosenman LLP and Ross I. Silverman, respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered October 9,2012, which granted the motion of defendants Rivkin Radler LLP and Barry I. Levy,Esq. to stay this action until 30 days from the date of filing of the decision or order ofJudge Eric N. Vitaliano in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v Accurate Med., P.C.(Eastern District of New York) on State Farm's motion to declare the documentdestruction provision of the settlement agreement in that case void, unanimouslyaffirmed, without costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered October 10, 2012, whichgranted the motion of defendants Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP and Ross Silverman,Esq. to stay this action as aforesaid, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by staying this action(see e.g. Belopolsky v RenewData Corp., 41 AD3d 322 [1st Dept 2007]). Were we to substitute our owndiscretion (see e.g. Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assoc., 94 NY2d 740, 745[2000]), we would reach the same result. Although there is not complete identity ofparties and claims in the instant action and State Farm, there is a commonquestion of law and fact (see e.g. Belopolsky, 41 AD3d at 322). If the EasternDistrict of New York finds that the document destruction clause is void, plaintiff willobviously have no claim in the case at bar for breach of that clause. "The duplication ofeffort, waste of judicial resources, and possibility of inconsistent rulings in the absenceof a stay outweigh any prejudice to plaintiff resulting from the" stay (OneBeacon Am. Ins. Co. vColgate-Palmolive Co., 96 AD3d 541, 541 [1st Dept 2012]).
A stay can be granted, even though defendants have not yet interposed answers(see Britt v International Bus Servs., 255 AD2d 143 [1st Dept 1998]).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.Concur—Gonzalez, P.J., Sweeny, Moskowitz, Richter and Clark, JJ.