Opinion
March 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leland DeGrasse, J.).
Defendant failed to meet the heavy burden of demonstrating that plaintiff's selection of New York is not in the interest of substantial justice (CPLR 327; Anagnostou v. Stifel, 204 A.D.2d 61, citing Banco Ambrosiano v. Artoc Bank Trust, 62 N.Y.2d 65, 74). Neither the fact that plaintiff is a Japanese corporation, whose witnesses may speak Japanese, nor the potential necessity of applying Japanese law, renders New York an inconvenient forum (see, supra, at 62; Gyenes v. Zionist Org., 169 A.D.2d 451; Kronengold v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 166 A.D.2d 325). Any need to translate documents into English does not warrant a contrary result (Gyenes v. Zionist Org., supra). Moreover, defendant failed to make any showing with respect to the materiality of the testimony of certain potential witnesses (Neville v. Anglo Am. Mgt. Corp., 191 A.D.2d 240, 242; Anagnostou v. Stifel, supra), and could not demonstrate that their testimony would be unavailable here. Most of the named witnesses are employees of plaintiff whose availability has been offered at no expense to defendant (see, Munoz v. American Pac. Min., 176 A.D.2d 624, 625; Kronengold v. Hilton Hotels Corp., supra). Further, while defendant's residence here is not a controlling factor (CPLR 327), it is an important one (see, Silver v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 29 N.Y.2d 356, 361). Accordingly, it was not an improvident exercise of discretion for the IAS Court to deny defendant's forum non conveniens motion. The motion to renew was properly denied as defendant failed to demonstrate that the newly proffered information was unavailable at the time the initial motion was made (see, Mangine v. Keller, 182 A.D.2d 476).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.