The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 were read on this motion to/for STAY. DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Upon the foregoing documents, and after oral argument, it is ordered that defendant’s motion for a stay is granted, as follows. This action was commenced by summons and complaint filed August 17, 2019, alleging that defendant Ms. Graham Robinson (“Robinson”), a former employee of plaintiff Canal Productions, Inc. (“Canal”), abused her position with plaintiff by charging hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of her personal expenses to plaintiff’s business charge account and utilized millions of plaintiff’s frequent flier miles — intended for business use — for her own personal use, plus other similar abuses. The complaint seeks restitutionary damages from defendant. Apart from the filing of an answer and this motion, no other proceedings, and no discovery, have occurred within the context of this action. Meanwhile, a federal action has been commenced by Robinson in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York titled Graham Chase Robinson v. Robert De Niro and Canal Productions, Inc. (Case No. 1:19-cv-09156-LL-KHP) asserting claims under the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York State Labor Law, the federal Equal Pay Act, and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. That federal action was commenced nearly two months after this action, on October 3, 2019 (see, federal complaint [NYSCEF Doc. No. 12]). Robinson submits the docket sheet of that federal case (NYSCEF Doc. No. 26) revealing multiple items of participation by Robinson and Canal which include assignments of District Judges as well as Magistrate Judges; issuance of a Case Management Order; filing of a Corporate Disclosure Statement; filing of an answer; a Mediation Referral Order; a transcript of proceedings; issuance of a Final Mediation Report; and, most significantly, issuance of a lengthy Scheduling Order which thoroughly maps out all discovery to be conducted among the parties, including document requests and responses, interrogatories, depositions, status conferences, expert discovery, and timeframes for amendment of pleadings (see, NYSCEF Doc. No. 26). Robinson now moves, pursuant to CPLR 2201, for a stay of this action pending the federal action. That statute provides that “the court in which an action is pending may grant a stay of proceedings in a proper case, upon such terms as may be just.” Furthermore, a stay is appropriate if it can “avoid duplication of effort and waste of judicial resources” and if it “avoids the risk of inconsistent rulings” (Asher v. Abbott Laboratories, 307 AD2d 211, 212 [1st Dept 2003]) There is no reason why Canal cannot, as a matter of procedure, assert its claims within the context of the federal action; nor does Canal proffer such reason. As noted above, the federal action has proceeded to several stages of interlocutory practice not taken advantage of by the parties within the context of this action. Indeed, to the extent that the complaint makes reference to Robert De Niro (see, Complaint 9) in relation to plaintiff’s allegations of conversion by defendant (Complaint
