CPLR 3211 (a) (4) provides that a court may dismiss an action where "there is another action pending between the same parties for the same cause of action in a court of any state or the United States" but specifically provides that "the court need not dismiss upon this ground but may make such order as justice requires." One alternative available to a court faced with a motion to dismiss on such grounds where it appears that the other action may be resolved in a manner which would not bar further proceedings in New York is to stay the New York action pending resolution of the other action (see, Houston v Trans Union Credit Information Co., 154 A.D.2d 312, 313; Flintkote Co. v American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 103 A.D.2d 501, affd 67 N.Y.2d 857; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3211:20, at 32-33). Such a course prevents the running of the applicable New York statute of limitations while plaintiff is pursuing his or her cause in another forum.

The record in this case clearly demonstrates that the within action was commenced for the purpose of protecting plaintiff from losing its right to pursue its claim in New York should a prior action for the same relief be dismissed by the Florida courts. On its motion for a stay, plaintiff has shown that defendants have asserted as a defense to the Florida action that plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed under Florida's five year statute of limitations. The New York statute of limitations for the claim involved is six years. A dismissal on statute of limitations grounds by another State would not, by itself, bar the bringing of an action in this State on res judicata grounds (see, Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3211:66, at 95-96; cf., De Crosta v Reynolds Constr. Supply Corp., 41 N.Y.2d 1100). We find that, under such circumstances, the action should not have been dismissed and should, instead, be stayed pending resolution of the Florida action. Defendants' arguments concerning the collateral estoppel effect upon the within action of any orders by the courts of Florida must await the lifting of that stay.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.