Opinion
March 24, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).
The motion court correctly determined that defendant Allen's meeting with plaintiff, at which the letter of intent and alleged oral joint venture agreement were negotiated and entered into, was a purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting business in this jurisdiction rather than an insignificant and fortuitous transitory presence, inasmuch as the discussions were directly related to the creation of the alleged oral agreement whose provision prohibiting transfer of the Malaysian Planet Hollywood franchise is the focus of plaintiff's allegations ( compare, Philan Ins. v. Hall Co., 215 A.D.2d 112, with Juron Minzner v. Dranoff Patrizio, 194 A.D.2d 402).
The motion court properly exercised its discretion in retaining jurisdiction, since defendants failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating that New York is an inconvenient forum ( see, Banco Ambrosiano v. Artoc Bank Trust, 62 N.Y.2d 65, 73). The application of the law of sister States does not present an undue burden ( see, Kastendieck v. Kastendieck, 191 A.D.2d 328; Kronengold v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 166 A.D.2d 325). Moreover, as the motion court aptly noted, the alleged oral joint venture agreement would likely be governed by the law of this jurisdiction. The convenience of witnesses does not militate toward resort to a different forum, since defendants failed to name any witnesses ( see, Matter of Katz v. Lazaroff, 236 A.D.2d 257; DeVita v. Vita, 240 A.D.2d 536) or demonstrate how their testimony would be material ( see, Yoshida Print. Co. v. Aiba, 213 A.D.2d 275).
Finally, Allen's signature on the letter of intent in his corporate capacity does not insulate him from liability with respect to claims arising from the alleged oral joint venture agreement or plaintiff's tort claims.
We have considered defendants-appellants' other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger and Tom, JJ.