Opinion
03-26-2024
Eli BARZILAI et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Israel MUSEUM, Defendant–Respondent.
Bienstock PLLC, New York (Martin Bienstock of counsel), and E. Landau Law Offices, Jerusalem, IS (Meir Heller and Caryn Abelow of the bar of the State of Israel, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellants. Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, New York (Yehudah L. Buchweitz of counsel), for respondent.
Bienstock PLLC, New York (Martin Bienstock of counsel), and E. Landau Law Offices, Jerusalem, IS (Meir Heller and Caryn Abelow of the bar of the State of Israel, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellants.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, New York (Yehudah L. Buchweitz of counsel), for respondent.
Singh, J.P., González, Scarpulla, Higgitt, Rosado, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), entered November 14, 2022, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
This action was properly dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens (see generally Phat Tan Nguyen v. Banque Indosuez, 19 A.D.3d 292, 294, 797 N.Y.S.2d 89 [1st Dept. 2005], lv denied 6 N.Y.3d 703, 811 N.Y.S.2d 335, 844 N.E.2d 790 [2006]). All of the parties reside outside New York and almost all of them (including most of the plaintiffs) reside outside the country; the central tortious acts occurred outside New York; all relevant documents and witnesses, including defendant’s staff are outside New York; foreign law may need to be applied; and Israel has a substantial interest in this dispute, especially given defendant’s strong ties to various Israeli government entities and other institutions (see Metz v. Davis Polk & Wardwell, 133 A.D.3d 501, 19 N.Y.S.3d 162 [1st Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 919, 2016 WL 699485 [2016]; Phat Tan Nguyen, 19 A.D.3d at 294-295, 797 N.Y.S.2d 89). The fact that Israel may not be an available alternative forum for the replevin and conversion claims because of the expiration of the relevant Israeli statute of limitations is not dispositive (see Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 480–481, 478 N.Y.S.2d 597, 467 N.E.2d 245 [1984], cert denied 469 U.S. 1108, 105 S.Ct. 783, 83 L.Ed.2d 778 [1985]; Flame S.A. v. Worldlink Intl. [Holding] Ltd., 107 A.D.3d 436, 438, 967 N.Y.S.2d 328 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 22 N.Y.3d 855, 2013 WL 6067977 [2013]) – especially where, as here, "the New York connection to the litigation is minimal" (Finance & Trading Ltd. v. Rhodia S.A., 28 A.D.3d 346, 347, 816 N.Y.S.2d 7 [1st Dept. 2006], lv denied 7 N.Y.3d 706, 837 N.Y.S.2d 1, 868 N.E.2d 662 [2006]).
In view of our disposition of this issue, we need not reach the parties’ remaining arguments (see Estate of Kainer v. UBS AG, 37 N.Y.3d 460, 160 N.Y.S.3d 182, 181 N.E.3d 537 [2021]).