Charles A. Termini, Oceanside, NY, for appellants.

Brach Eichler, LLC, New York, NY (Konstantine G. Paschalidis, Eric J. Boden, and John Simeone of counsel), for respondents.

DECISION & ORDER

In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the production of certain books and records of the respondent/defendant STP Brokerage, Inc., and action, among other things, for related injunctive relief, the petitioners/plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (James Hudson, J.), dated August 15, 2023. The order and judgment granted the motion of the respondents/defendants pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the petition/complaint and dismissed the proceeding/action.

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioners/plaintiffs (hereinafter the petitioners) commenced this hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to compel the production of certain financial books and records of the respondent/defendant STP Brokerage, Inc. (hereinafter STP), and action, among other things, for related injunctive relief with respect to certain alleged conduct by the respondents/defendants (hereinafter the respondents). The respondents moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the petition/complaint. The petitioners opposed the motion. In an order and judgment dated August 15, 2023, the Supreme Court granted the respondents' motion and dismissed the proceeding/action. The petitioners appeal.

Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(4), a court has broad discretion in determining whether a matter should be dismissed on the ground that there is another matter pending "where there is a substantial identity of the parties, the two [matters] are sufficiently similar, and the relief sought is substantially the same" (DAIJ, Inc. v Roth, 85 AD3d 959, 959; see Whitney v Whitney, 57 NY2d 731, 732). "It is not necessary that the exact legal theories presented in the first [matter] also be presented in the second [matter]" (Cherico, Cherico & Assoc. v Midollo, 67 AD3d 622, 622). Rather, "[t]he critical element is that both suits arise out of the same subject matter or series of alleged wrongs" (DAIJ, Inc. v Roth, 85 AD3d at 960 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Cherico, Cherico & Assoc. v Midollo, 67 AD3d at 622).

Here, this hybrid proceeding and action involves substantially the same parties and arises out of the same subject matter and series of alleged wrongs as a hybrid proceeding and action commenced in 2022 (hereinafter the 2022 matter) by the petitioners in this matter against most of [*2]the respondents in this matter, which is pending in the same court. In both this matter and the 2022 matter, the petitioners seek substantially the same relief with respect to the production of STP's books and records and to enjoin the alleged improper use of the petitioner/plaintiff Rupal Shah's insurance licenses.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondents' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the petition/complaint and dismissed the proceeding/action (see DAIJ, Inc. v Roth, 85 AD3d at 960; Cherico, Cherico & Assoc. v Midollo, 67 AD3d at 623).

In light of our determination, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions.

DUFFY, J.P., FORD, LANDICINO and VENTURA, JJ., concur.