The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss ( see, Whitney v Whitney, 57 N.Y.2d 731, on remand 92 A.D.2d 935, 936), as the action by one spouse for divorce on one set of grounds is not an action "for the same cause of action" (CPLR 3211 [a] [4]) as an action by the other spouse based on different grounds ( Kevorkian v Harrington, 158 Misc.2d 464, 468). Further, merely because defendant commenced his action first by serving and filing a summons with notice (CPLR 304) does not mandate dismissal as a "'prior action pending'" in the absence of service of a complaint ( supra, at 467, citing United Enters. v. Hill, 185 A.D.2d 206). Nor was it an improvident exercise of discretion to deny the motion for a stay pending determination of the Suffolk action (CPLR 2201). The award of interim maintenance and professional fees was not excessive based upon, inter alia, the parties' pre-separation lifestyle and the substantial difference in the parties' assets and income ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6]; § 237; Hartog v Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36, 50-51; DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 881; Baker v Baker, 120 A.D.2d 374).

However, because the court determined that New York was the first county in which the complaint was served for purposes of CPLR 3211 (a)(4) and as a joint proceedings will serve judicial economy, the court erred in failing to remove the Suffolk action to New York County and consolidate it with the New York action. The fact that Suffolk had previously denied a motion for change of venue pursuant to CPLR 510 and 511 would not prevent the grant of such motion pursuant to CPLR 602 ( see, McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C602:4; Padilla v Greyhound Lines, 29 A.D.2d 495, 499).

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Asch, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Rubin, J., dissents for the reasons stated by Friedman, J.