Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
We find that the court properly stayed the plaintiffs' prosecution of the instant New York action based upon another action pending in the Circuit Court of Baltimore County, Maryland, by some of the present defendants against the present plaintiffs (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [4]). Although there is an additional party in the plaintiffs' action in New York, it is substantial rather than complete identity of parties which is required to invoke that section (see, Barringer v Zgoda, 91 A.D.2d 811). Further, a review of the parties' claims indicates that an identity of subject matter exists with respect to the enforcement of the written agreement in question (see, Frank Pompea, Inc. v Essayan, 36 A.D.2d 745).
By staying the plaintiffs' action in New York, the court properly exercised its broad discretion by making such order as justice required (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [4]; Whitney v Whitney, 57 N.Y.2d 731; Key Bank v Lake Placid Co., 103 A.D.2d 19; Ackerman v Vertical Club Corp., 94 A.D.2d 665).
We have considered the plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Eiber, JJ., concur.