Legal Opinion
Sarepa v. Pepsico, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 11, 1996PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The rule of comity forbids the granting of an injunction to stay proceedings which have been commenced in a foreign court of competent jurisdiction unless it is clearly shown that the suit sought to be restrained was brought in bad faith, or motivated by fraud or an intent to harass the party seeking the injunction, or if its purpose was to evade the law of the domicile of the parties (see, Chayes v Chayes, 180 AD2d 566; Hyman Constr. Co. v Precision Walls, 132 AD2d 523, 526; Roman v Sunshine Ranchettes, 98 AD2d 744; Lazarow, Rettig & Sundel v Castle Capital Corp., 63 AD2d 277, 288, revd on…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Paramount Pictures, Inc. v. BlumenthalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
- E. B. Latham & Co. v. Mayflower IndustriesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1951
- Lazarow, Rettig & Sundel v. Castle Capital Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
- Roman v. Sunshine Ranchettes, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- George Hyman Construction Co. v. Precision Walls, Inc. of RaleighAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1987
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Sebastian Holdings, Inc. v. Deutsche Bank AG.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- Indosuez International Finance v. National Reserve BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- In re CohenNew York Surrogate's Court · 2004
- Indosuez International Finance B.V. v. National Reserve BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999