Court Denies Motion To Stay Action On Promissory Note Because Related California Action Involved Different Parties And Notes

Posted: November 6, 2026 / Written by: Samuel L. Butt / Categories Court Rules/Procedures, Breach of Contract, Commercial

Court Denies Motion To Stay Action On Promissory Note Because Related California Action Involved Different Parties And Notes

On October 13, 2026, in Promise Homes Co. LLC v. Promise Homes Investment, LLC, Index No. 654322/2025, Justice Robert R. Reed denied defendant’s motion to stay the action under C.P.L.R. 2201. In denying the stay, the Court explained:

Promise Homes Company, the plaintiff in this action, is owned by Bryant, the defendant in the California action. Promise Homes Investment, the defendant in this action, is owned by several subsidiaries and/or parent companies with ownership interests in Palm Drive Associates, the plaintiff in the California action. Although the ownership structures of the companies named in the matter now before this court overlap and are connected by related transactions, the breach of contract claim in this case is not connected, in any way, to the California action. This action involves the enforcement of a wholly separate promissory note, involving separate legal entities, which will be interpreted under New York law. The assertion of an indecorous motive, or an improper animus behind the filing of this action, will not overcome the movant’s obligation to establish that the separate proceedings involve common questions of law or fact, and that the imposition of a stay would further orderly procedure and comity (Asher, 307 AD2d at 211).

Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning motions to stay an action pending related litigation.

To read more about when a court will stay an action pending a related proceeding, see Schlam Stone & Dolan’s related Commercial Division Blog posts on a decision denying a motion to stay an action in favor of a parallel arbitration because the parties to the two proceedings were not completely identical and a decision denying a motion to stay an action pending a related FINRA proceeding because that proceeding involved different parties and different causes of action.