Opinion
13385 Index No. 653885/16 Case No. 2020-02703
03-18-2021
PRIMUS PACIFIC PARTNERS 1, LP, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, New York ( Sheron Korpus of counsel), for appellant. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York ( Sharon L. Nelles of counsel), for respondents.
Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, New York ( Sheron Korpus of counsel), for appellant.
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York ( Sharon L. Nelles of counsel), for respondents.
Acosta, P.J., Gische, Oing, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered May 20, 2020, which denied plaintiff's motion pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the judgment, same court and Justice, entered December 22, 2017, dismissing the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens, based on new evidence, and denied plaintiff's alternative request for leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to CPLR 3025, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The court providently declined to provide plaintiff with relief from its prior order, ostensibly based on newly discovered evidence ( Olwine, Connelly, Chase, O'Donnell & Weyher v. Valsan, Inc., 226 A.D.2d 102, 103, 640 N.Y.S.2d 72 [1st Dept. 1996] ; Coastal Sheet Metal Corp. v. RJR Mech. Inc., 85 A.D.3d 420, 421, 923 N.Y.S.2d 841 [1st Dept. 2011] ). Plaintiff's causes of action for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty lack a substantial nexus with New York ( Primus Pac. Partners 1, LP v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., 175 A.D.3d 401, 402, 108 N.Y.S.3d 1 [1st Dept. 2019] ), and plaintiff's newly discovered evidence does not provide such a nexus. Neither the parties to the transaction at issue, nor plaintiff, are New York corporations, and regardless of the new evidence provided by plaintiff, Malaysia continues to have a greater interest than New York in the conduct of its banks ( see Hanwha Life Ins. v. UBS AG, 127 A.D.3d 618, 8 N.Y.S.3d 180 [1st Dept. 2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 912, 2015 WL 7376060 [2015] ).
The court providently denied plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint. The proposed amended complaint contained the same causes of action as plaintiff's earlier complaint, and the factual amendments did not change the substance of those claims or create a substantial nexus with New York.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.