On October 17, 2025, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in CPIF Bloomington, LLC v. Prager, 2025 NY Slip Op. 34027(U), declining to dismiss an action in favor of a prior pending action because of an insufficient overlap of issues, explaining:
Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4), dismissal may be granted 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. With respect to the parties, complete identity is not necessary; substantial identity is all that is required to invoke CPLR 3211(a)(4). Substantial identity is generally present when at least one plaintiff and one defendant is common in each action. With respect to the causes of action, the relief sought must be the same or substantially the same. The critical element is that both suits arise out of the same subject matter or series of alleged wrongs. Where the parties and relief sought are not the same, dismissal is not warranted.
Defendant seeks dismissal based on the pendency of the Minnesota Action. However, neither element necessary to warrant dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(4) is present on the facts. Plaintiff’s complaint in the Minnesota Action asserted a single cause of action: the appointment of a custodial receiver for a ground lease mortgaged as security for the defaulted loan. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint in this action, in contrast, seeks judgment against Defendant for the amount due under Defendant’s personal guaranty. There is no indication that the Minnesota Court and this Court will be deciding overlapping legal or factual issues leading to the risk of inconsistent judgments.
Furthermore, while the Guarantor was initially named as a defendant in the Minnesota Action, he was subsequently dismissed before the Amended Complaint was filed and no claims against the Guarantor are pending or were adjudicated. Indeed, in the order appointing a receiver, the Minnesota District Court held that nothing contained herein shall have preclusive effect in any action (other than this action) by Plaintiff against Guarantor. The Guarantor is hereby dismissed as a party to this action as not being necessary for any relief currently sought in this action.
Accordingly, because the identity of the parties is insubstantial and the relief sought distinct, dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(4) is not warranted.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).