Opinion
570322/11
02-16-2012
Zurab Kakushadze, Plaintiff-Appellant- Cross-Respondent, v. Mark Gorton, Defendant-Respondent- Cross-Appellant. Phynance Consulting LLC,NY County Clerk's No. Plaintiff-Appellant-570322/11 Cross-Respondent, - - Mark Gorton, Calendar No. 11-201 Defendant-Respondent- Cross-Appellant.
PRESENT: , J.P., Shulman, Hunter, Jr., JJ
In consolidated small claims actions, plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of two orders of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), each dated December 2, 2010, as granted defendant's motion to stay the actions pending resolution of an arbitration proceeding. Defendant cross-appeals from that portion of the aforesaid orders which denied his motion to dismiss the actions.
Per Curiam.
Orders (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), dated December 2, 2010, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs.
"Upon due consideration of the goals of judicial economy, orderly procedure and the prevention of inequitable results" (Belopolsky v Renew Data Corp., 41 AD3d 322 [2007]), we conclude that the court soundly exercised its discretion in granting defendant's motion to stay these consolidated small claims action pending resolution of the arbitration proceeding contemporaneously commenced by the corporate plaintiff. Even though there is not a complete identity of parties, there appears to be a substantial overlap between the issues raised in the two proceedings, and the determination of the pending arbitration proceeding may well dispose of or limit issues involved in these court actions (Belopolsky at 322-323; Asher v Abbott Labs., 307 AD2d 211 [2003]). As the trial court properly recognized, an arbitral finding that the corporate respondent did not, as alleged, fraudulently induce execution of the underlying contractual agreement would presumptively bar plaintiffs' judicial claims for "fraudulent misrepresentation" asserted against defendant herein, the managing member of the corporate respondent (cf. Fewer v GFI Group Inc., 59 AD3d 271 [2009]). We find no prejudice to plaintiffs in allowing the fraud claim asserted against the corporate respondent in the pending arbitration proceeding to go forward before the satellite fraud claims against the corporate principal are pursued in court.
The issues raised on defendant's cross appeal, not having been briefed by defendant, are deemed abandoned.
THE CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.