Motion to Lift Stay in New York

Background

CPLR 2201 states, “[e]xcept where otherwise prescribed by law, the court in which an action is pending may grant a stay of proceedings in a proper case, upon such terms as may be just.” (Id.)

But CPLR 3214(b) allows for an automatic stay of discovery upon the filing of a motion for summary judgment or pending the decision on a motion to dismiss. (Shovak v. Comm. Bank (2006) 35 A.D.3d 837, 838.)

How to Structure the Motion

Under CPLR 3214(b), service of a notice of motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 stays [discovery] until determination of the motion unless the court orders otherwise.

Motion to Lift Stay

Despite far reaching consequences there is little case law activity on CPLR §3214. (Champion 221 LLC v. Madave Props. SPE, LLC (2013) N.Y. Slip Op. 30616, citing McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York, Book 7B, Rule 3214, Practice Commentaries, David D. Siegel, at 536.) The scant precedents and CPLR §3214(b) itself authorizes the court to order discovery not withstanding the automatic stay of CPLR § 3214(b). Hence, despite the automatic stay provision of CPLR § 3214(b) the trial court may direct otherwise if there is a legitimate need for discovery. (Id.; see also Reilly v Oakwood Heights Community Church (2000) 269 A.D.2d 582.)

The Court’s Decision

A motion for stay of proceedings is primarily addressed to court's discretion. (CPLR § 2201.) Generally, an action in a state court will not be stayed pending determination of a federal action, “where it appears that the action sought to be stayed will have to be determined no matter which way the case in the federal jurisdiction is decided.” (Grand Central Building Inc. v. New York Harlem Railroad Company (1977) 59 AD2d 207, 210.)

Finding that “[a] motion court's denial of a stay was an improvident exercise of discretion,” the court, in Asher v. Abbott Laboratories ((2003) 307 A.D.2d 211), further stated that “a stay pending determination of a related proceeding should be granted only when the other proceeding shares complete identity of parties, claims and relief sought....” (Id.) That same court also held that “[A] stay may be warranted when there is substantial identity between state and federal actions .... The latter instance is justified upon due consideration of issues of comity, orderly procedure, and judicial economy. (Id., internal citations omitted.)