The IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to disturb plaintiff's choice of a New York forum (see, Banco Ambrosiano v Artoc Bank Trust, 62 N.Y.2d 65, 73-74). While the television station that is the subject of the Federal foreclosure action is located in Ohio, most of the contracts in issue were negotiated, drafted or executed in New York and are governed by New York law, New York is the residence of defendant Citibank, and none of the parties are Ohio residents (see, Waterways Ltd. v Barclays Bank, 174 A.D.2d 324, 327-328); in addition the foreclosure action was not adversarial in nature, and the second Ohio action was commenced by Citibank alone after plaintiff had obtained jurisdiction here.
Nor did the IAS Court abuse its discretion in denying the motions to dismiss on the ground of another action pending (Whitney v Whitney, 57 N.Y.2d 731), there not being an identity of parties and issues between this and the Ohio actions (Morgulas v Yudell Realty, 161 A.D.2d 211, 212).
We have considered defendant Citibank's argument that the complaint fails to state a cause of action as against it, and the KT defendants' argument that it was an abuse of discretion for the IAS Court to deny a protective order and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Wallach, Ross and Asch, JJ.