Opinion
9519 Index 651976/16
06-04-2019
Sergey RODIONOV, etc., Plaintiff–Appellant, Alexander Ezhkov, etc., Plaintiff, v. William Donald REDFERN also known as Donald Redfern), et al., Defendants–Respondents, Peter Voletsky, et al., Defendants.
Otterbourg, P.C., New York (Pauline McTernan of counsel), for appellant. Bachner & Associates, P.C., New York (Michael F. Bachner of counsel), for respondents.
Otterbourg, P.C., New York (Pauline McTernan of counsel), for appellant.
Bachner & Associates, P.C., New York (Michael F. Bachner of counsel), for respondents.
Acosta, P.J., Richter, Kapnick, Kahn, Kern, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered June 5, 2018, to the extent it granted defendants William Donald Redfern, Fabienne Delaunay, and Ellen Rachelle Wittman's motion to dismiss the complaint against them on grounds of, inter alia, forum non conveniens ( CPLR 327[a] ), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court correctly dismissed the complaint on grounds of forum non conveniens. The court 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) in finding New York to be an inconvenient forum for the dispute. Although defendants employed a New York limited liability company and a New York investment account in carrying out the alleged fraudulent scheme, the bulk of the fraudulent transactions occurred in Cyprus, with most of the litigants and witnesses being domiciled or located there (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] ; Davidson Extrusions v. Touche Ross & Co., 131 A.D.2d 421, 423, 516 N.Y.S.2d 230 [2d Dept. 1987] ). Given the lack of a substantial nexus to New York, litigating the dispute here would impose a burden on New York courts (see Silver v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 29 N.Y.2d 356, 361, 328 N.Y.S.2d 398, 278 N.E.2d 619 [1972]. Further, Cyprus is an adequate alternative forum for litigating the dispute (see LaSala v. Bank of Cyprus Pub. Co., 510 F. Supp. 2d 246, 255–256 [S.D.N.Y.2007] ).
In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.