Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on December 20, 2012
Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lori S. Sattler, J.), entered August 3, 2012, which, inter alia, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint and for attorneys' fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
By the standards of either New York or English law, the plain language of the parties' agreement, as set forth in the Financial Order issued by the London High Court of Justice on May 26, 2006, reflects the parties' intention that English law govern an application by either party for modification of the maintenance provision of the agreement and that any application for a modification be made to the English court (see Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v 538 Madison Realty Co., 1 NY3d 470, 475 ; Ditta Estasis Salotti di Colzani Aimo E Gianmario Colzani v RUWA Polstereimaschinen GmbH, [Case 24/76 TJWS 6], 1 CMLR 345, 355  [whether clause conferring jurisdiction reflects parties' consensus "must be clearly and precisely demonstrated"]; Coreck Maritime GmbH v Handelsveem BV [Case C-387/98], Celex No. 698J0387).
In view of the fact that plaintiff's financial resources are significantly greater than defendant's and that her actions have caused unnecessary and protracted litigation, the motion court properly awarded defendant attorneys' fees (to be determined) (see Stella v Stella, 16 AD3d 109 [1st Dept 2005]).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: DECEMBER 20, 2012
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...