Opinion
October 28, 1999
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.).
The attachment was properly granted on the ground that defendants are foreign corporations not qualified to do business in New York (CPLR 6301 [a]), and the preliminary injunction was properly granted upon an adequate showing that defendants are dissipating their assets (see, Sau Thi Ma v. Xaun T. Lien, 198 A.D.2d 186, lv dismissed 83 N.Y.2d 847). Such preliminary injunctive relief is specifically contemplated by CPLR 6301, and therefore not precluded by the recent United States Supreme Court decision inGrupo Mexicano de Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond Fund ( 119 S Ct 1961). The motion to dismiss the breach of fiduciary duty claim was properly denied with leave to renew upon further development of the record, in view of the admitted insolvency of defendant issuer (see, Geren v. Quantum Chem. Corp., 1995 US App LEXIS 39912 [2d Cir]), and defendant guarantor's management of the issuer's restructuring much like a debenture trustee (see, Gould v. Henry Schroder Bank Trust Co., 78 A.D.2d 870). We make no ruling on the application of Russian law to such cause of action. Plaintiffs' order to show cause plainly sought document production, and defendants' claim that disclosure relief was improperly granted is otherwise without merit.
The portion of the Motion No. 5334 seeking to confirm that defendants have not violated a prior order denied, without prejudice to renewal in Supreme Court, New York County, and the portion of said motion seeking to extend the stay nunc pro tunc denied. Motion No. 5493, seeking discovery, dismissed as academic.
ELLERIN, P.J., TOM, MAZZARELLI, WALLACH, LERNER, JJ.