On June 6, 2023, the First Department issued a decision in Cohen v. Gordon & Silber, PC, 2023 NY Slip Op. 02968, holding that a party’s delay in seeking a stay of a civil trial pending his criminal trial justified denying the stay, explaining:
Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff’s application for a stay pending resolution of a related criminal action. In rendering a decision on such an application, the court will consider a number of factors, including whether a defendant intends to invoke his or her constitutional right against self-incrimination. Although the intention to invoke the right against self-incrimination is a compelling factor, a court is not obliged to stay a civil proceeding simply because a related criminal matter is pending.
The court imposed a stay before the one at issue on this appeal, but made that stay contingent on defendant’s filing of his criminal motion by a date certain and declined to vacate the note of issue. Plaintiff admits he failed to file the criminal motion by the date certain, instead filing the motion one week after that date. Even so, Supreme Court made clear that it was denying the second stay application for several reasons, only one of which pertained to the delayed motion filing in the criminal matter. For example, plaintiff did not make the second application for a stay until after he was deposed and after he had already certified in the note of issue that discovery was complete. Furthermore, as Supreme Court noted, the motion to dismiss the criminal case was only a partial motion to dismiss, raising the possibility that the criminal case could continue for years and deprive defendants of their right to a reasonably timely disposition of the civil case.
Plaintiff’s assertion that he would be deprived of a defense in the absence of a stay, is unavailing in light of the court’s previous order precluding plaintiff from testifying on any matter for which he had invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege at his deposition — a ruling that plaintiff did not appeal. As a result, there is no merit to plaintiff’s suggestion that once the criminal case is over, he will be free to answer questions in the civil matter.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).