In enacting General Obligations Law § 5-1402 and CPLR 327(b), the Legislature made explicit that public policy favors New York courts retaining actions against foreign states where a choice of New York law has been made and the foreign state agreed to submit to New York's jurisdiction. The doctrine of comity does not, in the present declaratory context involving insurance coverage and New York forum-selection and choice-of-law clauses contained in the insurance policy, warrant recognition of defendants' sovereign immunity ( cf. Korsinsky v Society Natl. Bank, 304 AD2d 793, citing Legal Capital, LLC v Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund, 561 Pa 336, 342, 750 A2d 299, 302 [Pa 2000]). We reject defendants' argument that Penn DOT lacked authority to waive its sovereign immunity by agreeing to submit to New York's jurisdiction. Penn DOT did not waive its sovereign immunity; rather, it agreed to litigate in a forum where it does not have sovereign immunity ( see Nevada v Hall, 440 US 410, 416 [while "no sovereign may be sued in its own courts without its consent," there is "no support for a claim of immunity in another sovereign's courts"]). We have considered and rejected defendants' other arguments.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.