Opinion
May 2, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).
Assuming in plaintiffs' favor that they have pleaded causes of action in tort apart from any claimed breach of the so-called Facility Letter, which is expressly governed by English law, such tort causes of action involve rules of conduct regulation, not loss allocation (see, Padula v Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 519, 522), such that the choice of law should turn on which jurisdiction has the greatest interest in the dispute (see, Matter of Travelers Indem. Co. [Levy], 195 A.D.2d 35, 38-39). Clearly that jurisdiction is England, which has an interest in protecting subjects, such as the individual plaintiff, from foreign businesses that commit tortious acts while seeking customers there (see, Bewers v American Home Prods. Corp., 99 A.D.2d 949, 950, affd 64 N.Y.2d 630). The subject banking service was specifically designed to target wealthy individuals in England; the real estate development that was the object of the loan transaction was to be constructed in England; and any English subject, doing business in England with the help of a service designed solely for English residents, was the target of defendants' alleged tortious conduct. The concession by plaintiffs that no cause of action arising from defendants' conduct throughout the course of the loan transaction would be viable under British law is fatal to the maintenance of this action here. We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.