On August 27, 2026, the First Department issued a decision in Astraea NYNY LLC v. Ganley, 2026 NY Slip Op. 05143, holding that a court erred in holding that the high bar for an antisuit injunction had been met, explaining:
Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it granted plaintiff’s motion for an antisuit injunction. The court’s power to issue an antisuit injunction is rarely and sparingly employed. Accordingly, an injunction will be granted only if there is danger of fraud or gross wrong being perpetrated on the foreign court. Plaintiff has not made that required showing.
The Delaware complaint does not constitute an improper collateral attack on the affirmed judgment in this action because the causes of action and the nature of relief sought in the Delaware action are based on a different alleged agreement and are distinguishable from the cause of action and relief obtained in this action. The causes of action in the Delaware action do not seek to challenge the validity of the 2017-2018 loan agreements or plaintiff’s right to recover the default judgment. Instead, the Delaware action concerns an alleged separate and subsequent 2020 agreement between defendant, Shuman, and two outside investors to settle the Worth Capital federal lawsuit. Thus, even if defendant prevails in the Delaware action, that result would not undo his obligation to satisfy the judgment in this action.
To be sure, several allegations in the Delaware complaint appear to attack the New York judgment. For example, defendant alleges that Supreme Court’s relief was obtained by trickery and deceit, that the judgment was wrongfully-obtained, and that this lawsuit did not accurately provide the New York state court with a full accounting of the underlying facts. Defendant also alleges that he already paid Shuman back any money owed to him and that defendant was not served with the New York lawsuit. Some of these allegations are misleading and others are simply inaccurate. Nevertheless, these erroneous, overwrought allegations are extraneous to the essential elements of defendant’s claims concerning the alleged 2020 agreement.
To the extent plaintiff argues that orders in this action have a preclusive effect on any of the issues in the Delaware action, the Delaware court can make that determination and is entrusted with giving full faith and credit to the judgment in this action. In addition, whether or not the forum selection clause in the 2017-2018 agreements applies to the Delaware action is a question the Delaware court should determine.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).