Opinion
December 14, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam Altman, J.).
Paribas has failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that defendants and third-party plaintiffs must resort to the procedures outlined in the Hague Convention for discovery purposes (see, Haynes v Kleinwefers, 119 FRD 335, 337, citing Societe Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale v United States Dist. Ct., 482 U.S. 522). The facts establish that: Paribas expressly agreed to be governed by the laws of New York; the only sovereign interest of France identified by Paribas — namely the French Blocking Statute — has proved not to be a significant sovereign interest and will not likely have any effect upon Paribas if it complies with New York's discovery rules and procedures (see, Rich v KIS Cal., 121 FRD 254, 258); and, if resort to the Hague Convention's "quite costly and cumbersome" procedures (Wilson v Lufthansa German Airlines, 108 A.D.2d 393, 397) were mandated in this case, it would likely frustrate the prompt disposition of the matter made necessary by plaintiff's principal's advanced age.
We have considered appellant's remaining issues and find them to be meritless.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ross and Asch, JJ.