that the alleged RICO activity predominantly occurred in New York rather than New Jersey, and was primarily aimed at harming plaintiffs indirectly by damaging their reputation by influencing the mostly New York-based financial markets and financial news media. In those circumstances, the application of New York law would not set a precedent that inhibits New Jersey from providing a civil cause of action for in-state activities that qualify as racketeering under New Jersey’s statute; New Jersey could still protect its domiciliaries and New Jersey commerce from harm that is felt mostly within its borders. In contrast, applying New Jersey’s civil cause of action would nullify New York’s policy of protecting analogous activity from being prosecuted as “rack , 948 A.2d 686 (App. Div. 2008) (<HOLDING>); Almog v. Isr. Travel Advisory Serv., Inc.,
recognizing israel had no interest in denying its citizens the substantive advantages of new jersey defamation law in new jersey residents claims for defamation published in new jersey recognizing new jerseys interest in deterrence of tortious misconduct as a relevant factor in choice of law decisions applicable where two of defendants were new jersey residents from whom damages were sought for their negligent acts in new jersey holding that a writ of execution under new jersey law is not an action against the consumer recognizing that pennsylvania had no interest in denying its residents the greater damages available under new jersey consumer fraud statutes for claims against a new jersey seller recognizing that alabama had no interest in denying its residents the procedural and substantive advantages afforded under new jerseys product liability and consumer fraud statutes but not alabamas for claims against a new jersey manufacturer