court’s noninterference with respondents’ ongoing criminal
prosecutions against petitioners. As petitioners move only for a
stay of their pending criminal prosecutions and not for any
interim relief that would allow the District Attorney to proceed
with them pending the disposition of this proceeding (see Dondi
v Jones, 40 NY2d at 20), the court denies petitioners’ motion
for a stay. (CPLR 2201; Somoza v Pechnik, 3 AD3d 394, 394
[1st Dept 2004]; Lessard Architectural Group, Inc., P.C. v
X & Y Dev. Group, LLC, 88 AD3d 768, 770 [2d Dept 2011];
Tribeca Lending Corp. v Crawford, 79 AD3d 1018, 1020 [2d
Dept 2010].) Such interim relief also would collaterally attack
the denial of disqualification already determined by the Crimi-
nal Court. (Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v Gould, 14 NY3d at
633-634; Morgenthau v Erlbaum, 59 NY2d at 147, 149; Steingut
v Gold, 42 NY2d at 315.) Petitioners remain free to seek a stay
or adjournment of their pending criminal prosecutions from
the Criminal Court.
Upon respondents’ motions to dismiss the petition pursuant
to CPLR 3211 (a) (4), based on another pending action, the
statute specifically provides that ‘‘the court need not dismiss
upon this ground but may make such order as justice requires.’’
(SafeCard Servs. v American Express Travel Related Servs. Co.,
203 AD2d 65, 65 [1st Dept 1994]; Mercado v City of New York,
68 AD3d 730, 731 [2d Dept 2009]; see Matter of Posada v New
York State Dept. of Health, 54 AD3d 1100, 1102 [3d Dept 2008];
342 W. 30th St. Corp. v Bradbury, 30 Misc 3d 132[A], 2011 NY
Slip Op 50037[U], *2 [App Term, 1st Dept 2011].) An available
196 58 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, 3d SERIES
alternative is to stay this action pending resolution of the other
action, here the criminal prosecutions. (AIG Fin. Prods. Corp. v