Opinion
11-17-2015
Alan METZ, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL, Defendant–Respondent.
Alan Metz, appellant pro se. Epstein Becker & Green, New York (Peter L. Altieri of counsel), for respondent.
Alan Metz, appellant pro se.
Epstein Becker & Green, New York (Peter L. Altieri of counsel), for respondent.
Opinion
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered February 7, 2014, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The motion court providently exercised its discretion and properly balanced the factors set forth in Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 479, 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); Matter of Alla v. American Univ. of Antigua, Coll. Of Medicine, 106 A.D.3d 570, 571, 965 N.Y.S.2d 469 (1st Dept.2013). As the motion court observed in evaluating the situs of the events at issue, plaintiff “reached across the Pacific” to recruit the partner he claims to have introduced to the defendant law firm, and all discussions occurred with that partner located in Hong Kong.
Plaintiff claims that Hong Kong is not an adequate forum on the basis that he would be unable to retain counsel on a contingency fee. Here, however, where the negotiations at issue were directed to Hong Kong, and key witnesses were located there, the motion to dismiss was properly granted (see Emslie v. Recreative Indus., Inc., 105 A.D.3d 1335, 1336–1337, 964 N.Y.S.2d 350 [4th Dept.2013]; cf. Waterways Ltd. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 174 A.D.2d 324, 327–328, 571 N.Y.S.2d 208 [1st Dept.1991] ).
Plaintiff further ignores the hardship to defendants whose key witnesses are located in Hong Kong, the noted admissibility problems with respect to electronic discovery, and the likely application of the law of Hong Kong. Since this action is almost entirely concerned with events and law in Hong Kong, it cannot be said that the action has a “substantial nexus” with New York (Tetra Fin. (HK) v. Patry, 115 A.D.2d 408, 410, 496 N.Y.S.2d 37 [1st Dept.1985] ).
GONZALEZ, P.J., SWEENY, MANZANET–DANIELS, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.