Facts
- The Bankruptcy Court dismissed Leo Blas's Chapter 13 case on March 2, 2023, ruling he filed in bad faith [lines="22-24"].
- Blas appealed the dismissal to the District Court after BANA sought relief to proceed with foreclosure [lines="25-29"].
- The Bankruptcy Court lifted the stay on January 16, 2024, allowing Bank of America to foreclose [lines="30-32"].
- Blas filed a motion for a stay on April 19, 2024, to prevent the foreclosure during his appeal of the stay lift [lines="39-41"].
- The District Court affirmed the dismissal of the Chapter 13 case on March 20, 2024, with no further appeals taken by Blas [lines="34-38"].
Issues
- Whether the appeal for a stay of nonjudicial foreclosure is moot due to the dismissal of Blas's Chapter 13 case [lines="45-46"].
- Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to grant effective relief if the automatic stay has been lifted [lines="58-59"].
Holdings
- The motion for a stay is moot since the automatic stay is no longer in effect due to the dismissal of the underlying Chapter 13 case [lines="62-63"].
- The finalized dismissal of Blas's case mooted the issue of whether to issue a stay of the Bankruptcy Court’s order [lines="60-61"].
OPINION
| Continuum Energy Tech., LLC v Iron Oak, Inc. (USA) |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 03077 |
| Decided on June 06, 2024 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided and Entered: June 06, 2024
Before: Webber, J.P., Oing, Kapnick, Rosado, Michael, JJ.
Index No. 657219/21 Appeal No. 2456 Case No. 2023-05352
v
Iron Oak, Inc. (USA), Formerly Known as Iron Oak, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellants, Iron Oak, Inc. (France), et al., Defendants.
White and Williams LLP, New York (Thomas E. Butler of counsel), for appellants.
Robins Kaplan LLP, New York (Lauren J. Coppola of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joel M. Cohen, J.), entered on or about April 5, 2023, which granted plaintiffs' motion to enjoin defendants from prosecuting the second-filed French action, unanimously affirmed.
"In the interest of preventing duplicative litigation that might lead to conflicting results, and to prevent the waste of judicial resources and unnecessary legal expenses, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by . . . enjoin[ing] defendant[s] from prosecuting the [French] action" (Jay Franco & Sons Inc. v G Studios, LLC, 34 AD3d 297, 298 [1st Dept 2006]; see also Murjani v Murjani, 123 AD3d 409, 410-411 [1st Dept 2014]; Gliklad v Cherney, 97 AD3d 401, 403 [1st Dept 2012]; IRB-Brasil Resseguros S.A. v Portobello Intl. Ltd., 59 AD3d 366, 366-367 [1st Dept 2009]; Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's v H.D.I. III Assoc., 213 AD2d 246-247 [1st Dept 1995]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: June 6, 2024