Opinion
January 23, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.
Present — Doerr, J.P., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.
Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and motion granted, in accordance with the following memorandum: It was an abuse of discretion for Special Term to deny defendants' application, pursuant to CPLR 2201, for a stay of this State action pending resolution of a Federal action commenced by defendants against plaintiff. At issue in both actions is the validity of the agreements which plaintiff seeks to enforce in the State action. Defendants contend that these agreements violate Federal antitrust laws. This is an issue over which the Federal court has exclusive jurisdiction (see, 15 U.S.C. § 15; Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 632; Banana Distribs. v. United Fruit Co., 269 F.2d 790, 793). Where, as here, alleged violations of antitrust laws arise directly out of the contract provisions sought to be enforced in the State action, a State court will not enforce the contract if found to be illegal under Federal law (see, Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, 455 U.S. 72; Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Voight Sons Co., 212 U.S. 227; Big Top Stores v. Ardsley Toy Shoppe, 64 Misc.2d 894, 905, affd 36 A.D.2d 582; cf. Kelly v. Kosuga, 358 U.S. 516, 518-521; Eastman Kodak Co. v GAF Corp., 71 A.D.2d 833). Since the issue of the legality of the agreements is central, not collateral, to resolution of the State action, considerations of comity, orderly procedure, and judicial economy demand that the Federal action be tried first (see, General Aniline Film Corp. v. Bayer Co., 305 N.Y. 479, 485; Barron v. Bluhdorn, 68 A.D.2d 809; Barnes v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell Co., 42 A.D.2d 15; Research Corp. v. Singer-General Precision, 36 A.D.2d 987).