Opinion
September 19, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).
The claims in this case concern allegations that defendant, a New York law firm, committed various acts of fraud and misrepresentation in connection with a bond offering of its client, an Australian company, in the New York financial markets. All of defendant's actions concerning such offering were performed in New York. The main issues raised involve New York law and concern defendant's conduct in New York. Much of the relevant testimony will likely come from witnesses who reside in the United States. Most of the relevant documents are located in New York or can be produced here. Under these circumstances, on this record, the IAS Court properly determined that defendant failed to sustain its significant burden of proving that any alleged prejudice to it in defending this action here outweighs plaintiff bondholder's right of access to the New York courts ( see, Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, cert denied 469 U.S. 1108; Silver v Great Am. Ins. Co., 29 N.Y.2d 356, 361). While a related action is pending in Australia, a majority of defendants in that case are from Australia or New Zealand, and the complaint in this case clearly alleges a New York based fraud.
We have considered defendant's other claims and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.