OPINION AND ORDER
JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.
The primary legal issue raised by this application for a stay pending appeal is whether Rule 62(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure automatically accords a political subdivision of the State of New York the same right to a stay as the subdivision would have under New York Law. The Court concludes that it does not.
On March 7, 1996, Magistrate Judge Fox, before whom this diversity action was tried on consent, issued a final judgment ordering defendant The County of Westchester (1) to pay damages to plaintiff Federal Insurance Company in the sum of $ 2,639,436.25; (2) to return to Federal Insurance all cash, bonds and other securities held as "retainage," together with all proceeds and interest earned thereon; and (3) to furnish Federal Insurance with a full accounting of the retainage.
After filing a notice of appeal in the Second Circuit, the County moved, by order to show cause, for an order of the District Court staying execution of the judgment pending appeal. See Rule 8(a), Fed. R. App. P. 8. In its supporting papers, the County argued that it was entitled to a stay, without having to post a bond, either as a matter of right under Rule 62(f), Fed. R. Civ. P., or as a matter of discretion under Rule 62(d), Fed. R. Civ. P. See generally, Texaco, Inc. v. Pennzoil Co., 784 F.2d 1133, 1154 (2d Cir. 1986), rev'd on other grounds, 481 U.S. 1, 95 L. Ed. 2d 1, 107 S. Ct. 1519 (1987); Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. Of New York v. Republic of Palau, 702 F. Supp. 60, 65 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); Trans World Airlines Int'l v. Hughes, 314 F. Supp. 94, 96 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).
On March 13, 1996, upon receipt of the proposed order to show cause, the Court held a hearing, at which counsel for both sides appeared and argued. In the course of the hearing, the County relinquished its request for a stay of so much of Magistrate Judge Fox's judgment as requires defendant to supply an accounting of the retainage. In fact this accounting has now been supplied. (See Affidavit of Peter P. Pucillo, dated March 25, 1996, stating total of retainage account as $ 2,549,398.16 as of February 29, 1996.) Accordingly, the Court need no longer consider this portion of the request for a stay.
Following the hearing, the Court granted a temporary stay pending receipt of further written submissions on the issues presented. The Court, having now reviewed the submissions of the parties and the relevant authorities, hereby lifts the temporary stay and denies the County's motion for a stay except to the extent consented to by Federal Insurance, as set forth below.
First, the Court concludes that a stay under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(f) is not available to the defendant in this case. Rule 62(f) provides as follows:
Stay According to State Law. In any state in which a judgment is a lien upon the property of the judgment debtor and in which the judgment debtor is entitled to a stay of execution, a judgment debtor is entitled, in the district court held therein, to such stay as would be accorded the judgment debtor had the action been maintained in the courts of that state.