DECISION AND ORDER This action, as well as related actions bearing index Nos. 652246/2018, 652247/2018, 652249/2018, and 652250/2018,1 are consolidated for disposition with regard to pending defense motions seeking the same relief. Defendant moves, in all five cases, to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds (CPLR 327 [a]) (motion seq. no. 001). Defendant further moves to strike plaintiffs’ CPLR 3215 (g) notices of default, and to extend its time to answer the complaints in these cases should the court deny its motions to dismiss (motion seq. no. 002).Introduction:No answer has yet been served in the actions; and, as a natural consequence of that, no discovery has yet been taken. The complaints in all the actions present as straightforward actions seeking a money judgment against defendant Saks Incorporated (“Saks”) on its guaranties of rent obligations by commercial tenants of shopping mall spaces located outside the State of New York. None of the cases involves foreclosure of any mortgages on any of those spaces, or any other relief at law or in equity that, as far as can be discerned at present, might affect the actual real properties themselves, or anyone’s rights therein. Simply put — the actions are about money alleged to be owed by Saks, directly and contractually, to the plaintiffs. Nothing more, and nothing less.Saks’ motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens focus on extraneous factors that center, not on the fact of the guaranties, as they ought to; but rather, on things such as the out-of-state locations of the stores; choice of other-state-law clauses found in leases and related documents; and the non-domiciliary nature of the parties. At no time does Saks demonstrate that any quantum of necessary evidence is situated out of state, or that it — a corporation authorized to do business in New York; actively doing business in New York; and maintaining offices in New York — would encounter undue prejudice by having to defend these apparently straightforward actions-on-guaranties here, in New York.Plaintiffs’ Choice of Forum:Saks bears the burden of “demonstratin[g] relevant private or public interest factors which militate against accepting the litigation” (Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 479 [1984] [citations omitted], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]). Such burden remains constant “despite the plaintiff’s status as a nonresident” (Bank Hapoalim [Switzerland] Ltd. v. Banca Intesa S.p.A., 26 AD3d 286, 287 [1st Dept 2006]). Dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds is only appropriate where “trial in the plaintiff’s chosen forum imposes a heavy burden on the defendant or the court, and where the plaintiff is unable to offer any specific reasons of convenience supporting his choice” (Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 US 235, 249 [1981], rehearing denied 455 US 928 [1982]). “[U]nless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed” (Thor Gallery at DeKalb, LLC v. Reliance Mediaworks [USA] Inc., 131 AD3d 431, 431 [1st Dept 2015]).General and Specific Considerations, and the Non-Effect of Choice of Law in these Cases:General considerations include the fact that Saks is authorized to do business in New York and maintains a principal place of business in New York, as per the New York State Department of State, Division of Corporations, certificate submitted by plaintiffs, evidencing same.2 As asserted, Saks or its affiliate owns and operates several Saks Fifth Avenue luxury retail department stores in New YorkSpecific considerations include the fact that communications from Saks regarding the guaranties that are the sole subject of these cases originated from New York, and the related Guarantor Estoppel Certificates were negotiated and executed in New York (see, Affidavit of Lawrence Kadish [the "Kadish Aff."]
