"Appellate courts in this State have repeatedly held that a bankruptcy stay does not prevent a plaintiff from proceeding on causes of action against nonbankrupt defendants, which do not involve the bankrupt's property" (Cen Trust Servs. v. Guterman, 160 A.D.2d 416, 418; see also, King v. Northway Agencies, 127 A.D.2d 955; Lottes v. Slater, 114 A.D.2d 580). Here, the guarantees of the contract between plaintiff and Multigas by the individual defendants-appellants were absolute and unconditional. Discovery had been completed and the case was ready to go to trial at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed. Under such circumstances, the prejudice to plaintiff in being "required to await the conclusion of lengthy and complex reorganization proceedings before obtaining any remedy" outweighs any potential inconvenience to the defendants. (Lottes v. Slater, supra, at 581.) Accordingly, the IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in severing the action against the bankrupt party (see, CPLR 603; Feldstein v. Greater N.Y. Councils, 16 A.D.2d 771).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.