On March 26, 2026, the First Department issued a decision in Canara Bank, London Branch v. MVP Group Intl., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op. 01868, holding that a plaintiff should have been allowed voluntarily to discontinue its claims, explaining:
Given the absence of special circumstances, the court should have exercised its discretion to permit plaintiff to voluntarily discontinue this action pursuant to CPLR 3217 (b) in favor of its out-of-state collection efforts. Defendant does not claim any prejudice, nor is any apparent, as the request to discontinue was made relatively early in the litigation and the discontinuance had no effect on defendant’s counterclaims. It is within a court’s sound discretion to deny a motion to discontinue where the plaintiff sought to avoid an obvious adverse outcome. Here, however, it was not clear at the time plaintiff moved to discontinue that defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment would be granted. The mere pendency of a motion for summary judgment is not itself a special circumstance warranting denial of a motion to discontinue. Defendant’s argument that its debt has already been satisfied may presumably be raised in any foreign action. In light of our disposition of this issue, defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff’s cross-motion for leave to amend are moot.
(Internal citations omitted).