The court properly balanced the appropriate factors (see, Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, cert denied 469 U.S. 1108) and properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens, while imposing reasonable conditions designed to protect plaintiffs' interests. This action lacks a substantial connection to New York and would be burdensome to its courts. This case primarily concerns transactions in an account that plaintiffs, citizens and residents of Egypt, opened in defendant's branch located in Jersey, a Channel Island. While some of the transactions at issue were processed in New York for reasons relating to plaintiffs' convenience, these were clearly incidental and do not create a significant nexus. Under these circumstances, the fact that defendant maintains its headquarters in New York does not establish that New York is an appropriate forum (see, Neuter, Ltd. v. Citibank, N.A., 239 A.D.2d 213; see also, Trinity Inv. Trust L.L.C. v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co., 275 A.D.2d 661). We note that plaintiffs would not be inconvenienced by a trial in Jersey, that most of the relevant witnesses and documents are located there, and that the courts of Jersey provide a suitable forum. We have considered and rejected plaintiffs' remaining claims.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.