| DAIJ, Inc. v Roth |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 05446 [85 AD3d 959] |
| June 21, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| DAIJ, Inc., Appellant, v Ronald H. Roth et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Ronald H. Roth, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Ronald H. Roth, respondent pro se of counsel),respondent pro se and for respondent Laura Roth.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals froman order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Iannacci, J.), entered January 9, 2009, whichgranted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4), a court has broad discretion in determining whether an actionshould be dismissed based upon another pending action where there is a substantial identity ofthe parties, the two actions are sufficiently similar, and the relief sought is substantially the same(see Whitney v Whitney, 57 NY2d 731, 732 [1982]; Kent Dev. Co. v Liccione,37 NY2d 899, 901 [1975]; Cherico,Cherico & Assoc. v Midollo, 67 AD3d 622, 622 [2009]; Liebert v TIAA-CREF, 34 AD3d756, 757 [2006]). "The critical element is that both suits arise out of the same subject matteror series of alleged wrongs" (Cherico, Cherico & Assoc. v Midollo, 67 AD3d at 622[internal quotation marks omitted]; see Kent Dev. Co. v Liccione, 37 NY2d at 901).
This action and an action pending in the Civil Court of the City of New York both arise fromthe same subject matter and alleged wrongs, and involve substantial identity of the parties andsimilarity of claims. The plaintiff's claims may be fully litigated in the Civil Court action.Accordingly, on the record presented, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion ingranting the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4) (seeCherico, Cherico & Assoc. v Midollo, 67 AD3d at 623; Liebert v TIAA-CREF, 34AD3d at 757).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Leventhal, Hall andLott, JJ., concur.