As a general rule, New York law favors staying cases in deference to “first-filed” actions.  Proceedings begun in another State or forum should not be interfered with unless there is some necessity clearly shown.  Generally, the court which has first taken jurisdiction is the one in which the matter should be determined and it is a violation of the rules of comity to interfere.  See White Light Prod., Inc. v. On the Scene Prod., Inc.,231 A.D.2d 90, 96 (1st Dept 1997), quoting City Trade & Indus. Ltd. v. New Central Jute Mills Co.,25 N.Y.2d 49, 58-59 (1969) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

CPLR 3211(a)(4) codifies the procedure by which the court considers whether, in the interest of comity and judicial economy, it should dismiss a later-filed suit in favor of an earlier action pending in another forum, to avoid vexatious litigation and the duplication of effort, and the attendant risk of divergent rulings on similar issues. See White Light Prod., Inc. v. On the Scene Prod., Inc.,231 A.D.2d 90,supra.

New York’s ‘’first-filed rule’’, embodied in CPLR 3211(a)(4), provides that “[a] party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action asserted against him on the ground that… there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action in a court of any state or the United States.” N.Y. C.P.L.R. 3211(a)(4) (2005).

Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4), a court has broad discretion as to the disposition of an action when another is pending. See Whitney v. Whitney, 57 N.Y.2d 731 [1982] ); Also See Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co.,16 AD3d 167 [1st Dept 2005] ); Employers Ins, of Wausau v. Primerica Holdings, Inc., 199 A.D.2d 178, 178, 605 N.Y.S.2d 89, 90 (1st Dep’t 1993); Barringer v. Zgoda, 91 A.D.2d 811, 811, 458 N.Y.S.2d 42, 43 (3d Dep’t 1982).

Courts deciding motions to dismiss made pursuant to C.P.L.R 3211(a)(4) generally consider three factors. First, the party seeking dismissal must establish that the other action was commenced first. See Reckson Assocs. Realty Corp. v. Blasland, Bouck, & Lee, Inc., 230 A.D.2d 723, 725, 645 N.Y.S.2d 873, 874 (2d Dep’t 1996). Second, there must be substantial identity of the parties in each action. See White Light, 231 A.D.2d at 93-94, 660 N.Y.S.2d at 571. Third, the subject matter of the actions and the relief sought must be the same or substantially similar. Id.

It is unnecessary to show that both actions pursue all of the same theories.  All that is required is that (1) both suits arise out of the same actionable wrong; and (2) there is no good reason why one action should not be sufficient to resolve the disputed issues. See Hinman, Straub, Pigors & Manning, P.C. v. Broder, 89 A.D.2d 278, 280, 456 N.Y.S.2d 834, 836 (3d Dep’t 1982); Schaller v. Vacco, 241 A.D.2d 663 [3d Dept 1997]; JC Mfg., Inc. v. NPI Elec., Inc.,178 A.D.2d 505 [2d Dept 1991].

Accordingly, a motion made pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4) should be granted where an identity of parties and causes of action raises the possibility of conflicting rulings relating to the same matter.  See Matter of Feustel v. Rosenblum, 24 AD3d 549 [2d Dept 2005]; also see White Light Prod., Inc. v. On the Scene Prod., Inc.,231 A.D.2d 90,supra).