Starr Russ. Invs. III B.V. v. Deloitte Touche Tohumatsu Ltd.
| Decision Date | 07 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | 8335-8335A,Index 652251/17 |
| Citation | 94 N.Y.S.3d 248,169 A.D.3d 421 |
| Parties | STARR RUSSIA INVESTMENTS III B.V., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHUMATSU LIMITED, et al., Defendants–Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
169 A.D.3d 421
94 N.Y.S.3d 248
STARR RUSSIA INVESTMENTS III B.V., Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
DELOITTE TOUCHE TOHUMATSU LIMITED, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
8335-8335A
Index 652251/17
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
ENTERED: FEBRUARY 7, 2019
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York (William R. Maguire of counsel), for Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, appellant.
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, New York (Michael J. Dell of counsel), for Deloitte LLP, Deloitte CIS Limited and Deloitte CIS Holdings Limited, appellants.
Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL (David A. Gordon of the bar of the State of Illinois, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for ZAO Deloitte & Touche CIS, appellant.
Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, New York (Nicholas A. Gravante, Jr. of counsel), for respondent.
Acosta, P.J., Gische, Kapnick, Gesmer, Singh, JJ.
Plaintiff has standing to pursue its claims based on allegations that it was fraudulently induced to invest in and maintain its investment in the Russian Investment Trade Bank (ITB), as these claims allege direct rather than derivative harm, i.e., injuries to plaintiff, rather than to ITB (see Accredited Aides Plus, Inc. v. Program Risk Mgt., Inc., 147 A.D.3d 122, 135, 46 N.Y.S.3d 246 [3d Dept. 2017] ; Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd., 728 F.Supp.2d 372, 401 [S.D. N.Y.2010] ).
Defendants failed to meet their heavy burden of establishing, for purposes of obtaining dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, that New York is an inconvenient forum and that a substantial nexus between New York and this action is lacking (see Kuwaiti Eng'g Group v. Consortium of Intl. Consultants, LLC, 50 A.D.3d 599, 600, 856 N.Y.S.2d 101 [1st Dept. 2008] ; see also Bokara Rug Co., Inc. v. Kapoor, 93 A.D.3d 583, 941 N.Y.S.2d 81 [1st Dept. 2012] ).
The court has personal jurisdiction over defendant ZAO Deloitte & Touche CIS under CPLR 302(a)(2) with respect to all the claims. It does not have jurisdiction over...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Style Asia, Inc. v. J Club
...Solomon Capital, LLC v. Lion Biotechnologies, Inc., 171 A.D.3d 467, 468 (1st Dep't2019); Starr Russia Invs. III B.V. v. Deloitte Touche Tohumatsu Ltd., 169 A.D.3d 421, 422 (1st Dep't 2019); Suttongate Holdings Ltd. V. Laconm Mgt. N.V., 160 A.D.3d 464, 464-65 (1st Dep't 2018); Mohinani v. Ch......
- HYK-273 W. 138th St. LLC v. N.Y.S. Div. of Hous. & Cmty. Renewal
-
Starr Russ. Invs. III B.V. v. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Ltd.
...N.Y.S.3d 157, 93 N.E.3d 882 [2018] ; see also CPLR 3101[a] ). Initially, our decision in Starr Russia Invs. III B.V. v Deloitte Touche Tohumatsu Ltd., 169 A.D.3d 421, 94 N.Y.S.3d 248 (1st Dept. 2019) limits the direct claims against DTTL to only claims concerning its fraudulent inducement o......
-
Starr Russ. Invs. III B.V. v. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Ltd.
...that the court had personal jurisdiction over defendant ZAO Deloitte & Touche CIS (ZAO) under CPLR 302(a)(2) (see 169 A.D.3d 421, 422, 94 N.Y.S.3d 248 [1st Dept. 2019] ). However, we also determined that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that the UK Deloitte defendants exercised dominat......