Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Fiorilla

• Decision Date: 20 May 2021
• Docket Number: 13878N-13878NA,Index No. 653017/13,Case No. 2020-02741
• Citation: 144 N.Y.S.3d 344 (Mem),194 A.D.3d 566
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Parties: In the Matter of CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. et al., Petitioners–Respondents–Appellants, v. John Leopoldo FIORILLA, as Trustee FBO, etc., Respondent–Appellant–Respondent.

194 A.D.3d 566

144 N.Y.S.3d 344 (Mem)

In the Matter of CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC. et al., Petitioners–Respondents–Appellants,

v.John Leopoldo FIORILLA, as Trustee FBO, etc., Respondent–Appellant–Respondent.

13878N-13878NA

Index No. 653017/13

Case No. 2020-02741

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED May 20, 2021

Law Office of Bernard V. Kleinman, PLLC, Somers (Bernard V. Kleinman of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York (Audra J. Soloway of counsel), for respondents-appellants.

Acosta, P.J., Webber, Kennedy, Shulman, JJ.

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered on or about October 25 and 28, 2019, which, respectively, granted petitioners’ motion to the extent of holding respondent Fiorilla in civil contempt for violating an anti-suit injunction and awarded attorneys’ fees to petitioners, and denied petitioners’ motion for criminal contempt, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in holding respondent Fiorilla in civil contempt for violating the anti-suit injunction issued by Supreme Court ( Matter of Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. Fiorilla, 151 A.D.3d 665, 54 N.Y.S.3d 586 [1st Dept. 2017], lv dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 986, 66 N.Y.S.3d 213, 88 N.E.3d 371 [2017] ), which prohibited him from taking legal action in France to enforce an arbitration award that Supreme Court had previously vacated (see Matter of Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. v. Fiorilla, 127 A.D.3d 491, 4 N.Y.S.3d 528 [1st Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 908, 2015 WL 6143386 [2015] ). However, contrary to petitioners’ argument, we find that it was not an abuse of discretion to decline to hold Fiorilla in criminal contempt for this conduct. Finally, we find that the court providently exercised its discretion in rejecting Fiorilla's request for a second adjournment of the evidentiary hearing on the contempt motion.