"The doctrine of forum non conveniens should be applied only when it plainly appears that New York is an inconvenient forum and that the action has no nexus to this state." ( Singh v Swan, 225 AD2d 1057, 1057 [4th Dept 1996] [emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Shepherd Showcase v Pekala, 138 AD2d 960, 961 [4th Dept 1988]; see also Creditanstalt Inv. Bank AG. v Chadbourne Parke LLP, 4 Misc 3d 481, 486 [Sup Ct, NY County 2004] [forum non conveniens motion denied because "the defendant did not meet (its) heavy burden of demonstrating that plaintiffs' selection of New York as the forum for the within litigation is not in the interest of substantial justice" (internal quotation marks omitted)].)
Finally, "It is well established that unless the balance is strongly in favor of defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.'" (Creditanstalt Investment Bank AG v. Chadbourne Parke LLP, 778 NYS2d 863, 865 {4 Misc 3d 481} [Sup Ct, NY County 2003], quoting Waterways Ltd. v. Barclays Bank, 174 AD2d 324, 327 [1st Dept 1991]). Because the parties signed the Distribution Agreement in New York and the parties performed the Agreement in New York, New York courts have a public interest in retaining the action.