Deference to the long-pending comprehensive Ohio action was warranted, as we ruled in this case in October 2007 ( 44 AD3d 536, 537); the first-filed rule does not govern here ( see ACE Fire Underwriters Ins. Co. v ITT Indus., Inc., 44 AD3d 404, 405). Travelers was not entitled to summary judgment on its defense of release; the interpretation of the settlement agreement at issue presented an issue for the Ohio court, which ruled in favor of resorting to extrinsic evidence.
In view of NL's forum-shopping in commencing parallel Texas actions just after the insurers had brought suit in New York, this Court's clear indication in our October 2007 ruling that the dispute has a greater nexus to New York, and the possibility of conflicting rulings, NL should have been enjoined from maintaining its Texas action ( see Jay Franco Sons Inc. v G Studios, LLC, 34 AD3d 297; Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's v H.D.I. III Assoc., 213 AD2d 246). Under the circumstances, our deference to the Texas courts as a matter of comity is not warranted.