On January 14, 2025, the First Department issued a decision in Finch Prop. Holdings I, LLP v. Blumenfeld, 2025 NY Slip Op. 00190, holding that a court properly declined to dismiss an action in favor of an earlier-filed action, explaining:
Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4), an action should be dismissed where an identity of parties and causes of action in two simultaneously pending actions raises the danger of conflicting rulings relating to the same matter. Moreover, with respect to the subject of the actions, the relief sought must be the same or substantially the same. Here, even assuming that the matters in the Philadelphia action arose from the same transaction, the relief sought in each action was quite different. The relief sought in the Philadelphia action involved the mortgage loan and the mezzanine loan made to certain borrower entities, while the relief sought in this action concerned only the subject sponsor loan made to Blumenfeld individually.
Supreme Court also properly declined to dismiss or stay this action pursuant to the first-in-time rule. Pursuant to the first-in-time rule, the court which has first taken jurisdiction is the one in which the matter should be determined. However, the practice of determining priorities between pending actions on the basis of dates of filing is a general rule, not to be applied in a mechanical way, regardless of other considerations. Although the Philadelphia action was filed first, it is not dispositive in a case such as this, where this litigation presents different issues than the Philadelphia action. On these grounds, as well as the forum selection clause contained in section 8 of the note, and the governing law clause contained in section 15.5.3 of the loan agreement, Supreme Court correctly declined to stay or dismiss the current litigation, and instead stayed enforcement of the judgment pending the resolution of the Philadelphia action.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).