From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Park v. Kredietbank N.V

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 25, 2000
271 A.D.2d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

April 25, 2000.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered November 10, 1999, which, in this action brought to recover moneys paid on a letter of credit, inter alia, granted defendant's motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Elliot Silberman, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Jonathan I. Blackman, for defendant-respondent.

ROSENBERGER, J.P., NARDELLI, TOM, WALLACH, SAXE, JJ.


The IAS court appropriately exercised its discretion in dismissing the action pursuant to CPLR 327 (see, e.g., World Point Trading PTE., Ltd. v. Credito Italiano, 225 A.D.2d 153, 159). The genesis of the subject transaction was in Singapore, where the application for the original letter of credit and the decision to dishonor the letter of credit on the ground of forgery were made. Insofar as the crucial underlying issue in this litigation is concerned, i.e., whether plaintiff Korean bank's honoring of the letter of credit was reasonable, there is no meaningful nexus to New York. Under all the circumstances, Singapore is a more convenient forum than New York, not least because of its proximity to Korea, where the purported fraud occurred.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Park v. Kredietbank N.V

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 25, 2000
271 A.D.2d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Park v. Kredietbank N.V

Case Details

Full title:YOUNG-BAE PARK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. KREDIETBANK N.V.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 25, 2000

Citations

271 A.D.2d 360 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
707 N.Y.S.2d 80

Citing Cases

Shin-Etsu Chem. Co., Ltd. v. Icici Bank Ltd.

Because of its mistaken view that the case was subject to summary disposition, the motion court failed to…