In Indosuez Intl. Fin., B.V. v. Natl. Reserve Bank, 304 A.D.2d 429 (1st Dept. 2003), the plaintiff sued to enforce a mandatory forum selection clause in the parties' currency exchange agreements that required the parties to litigate disputes connected with the agreements only in New York. The Court gave a number of reasons why the trial court's grant of a permanent injunction was appropriate: First, comity was not implicated because "there was no possibility of treading on the legitimate prerogatives of the foreign jurisdictions to which defendant had repeatedly turned," in light of the mandatory forum selection and choice of law clauses, and the Court of Appeals' ruling in the parties' earlier action that the defendant could not litigate in Russia. Second, the injunction was "consonant with our policy of enforcing choice of law and forum selection clauses." Third, there was a judgment on the merits of the parties' underlying dispute, and the New York courts were entitled to protect it. Finally, "there was clear evidence of defendant's harassing and bad faith foreign litigation." (Indosuez, 304 A.D.2d at 430.)