There are several issues of fact in Action No. 1 regarding the stock purchase agreement, the consulting agreement and the promissory notes signed by Somoza, justifying denial of that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. However, the pendency of that action did not warrant a stay of the execution of judgment in Action No. 2, since Somoza's claims for a set-off are not inextricably intertwined with or inseparable from the issues involved in Action No. 1 ( Banco do Estado de Sao Paulo v. Mendes Jr. Intl. Co., 249 A.D.2d 137). A stay of one action pending the outcome of another is appropriate only where the decision in one will determine all the questions in the other, and where the judgment in one trial will dispose of the controversy in both actions; this requires a complete identity of parties, cause of action and the judgment sought ( Pierre Assoc. Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. of New York, 32 A.D.2d 495, 497). Here, the two actions arise from discrete agreements for the sale of two separate businesses, and the contracting parties are not identical.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.