This is an action to recover damages for alleged mishandling of confidential software. Upon due consideration of the goals of judicial economy, orderly procedure and the prevention of inequitable results ( see Asher v Abbott Labs., 307 AD2d 211), we conclude that the court did not exercise its discretion improvidently by staying this action pending resolution of the previously commenced related action ( cf. Pierre Assoc., v Citizens Cas. Co. of N.Y., 32 AD2d 495, 496). Even though there was not a complete identity of parties, there were overlapping issues and common questions of law and fact ( see Minton v Minton, 277 AD2d 103; Goodridge v Fernandez, 121 AD2d 942, 945), and "the determination of the prior action may dispose of or limit issues which are involved in the subsequent action" ( Buzzell v Mills, 32 AD2d 897).