Opinion
April 6, 2000.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered November 23, 1999, which, as corrected by an order of the same court and Justice, entered on or about December 7, 1999, denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint or stay the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Thomas W. Brunner, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
Eugene R. Licker Thomas M. Reiter, for Defendant-Appellant.
NARDELLI, J.P., MAZZARELLI, LERNER, FRIEDMAN, JJ.
We find a substantial nexus with New York (cf., Cont. Ins. Co. v. Polaris Indus. Partners, L.P., 199 A.D.2d 222), and, therefore, conclude that the motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens (see,e.g., Wildenstein v. Wildenstein, 249 A.D.2d 12, 13). Even were we to find that the Federal Y2K Act (see, 15 U.S.C. § 6601, et seq.) applied to actions of this type, and even were we to apply it retroactively (see, 15 U.S.C. § 6603[a]), we would nonetheless hold that the lack of prelitigation notice (see, 15 U.S.C. § 6606) does not amount to a jurisdictional predicate requiring dismissal (cf.,Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20). In any event, defendant's choice to seek a judicial remedy, and the parties' entry into court-ordered mediation, render the Y2K Act prelitigation issue academic. We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.