HAUSSMANN v. AG (2025)

MEMORANDUM

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division insofar as appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court dismissed this putative shareholder derivative action for reasons including that “in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum” (73 Misc.3d 1234[A], 2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 51232[U], *2, 2021 WL 6110467 [Sup Ct, N.Y. County 2021], quoting CPLR 327[a]).^*  “In general, a decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is addressed to a court's discretion, and we will review it only to decide whether discretion has been abused” (Mashreqbank PSC v. Ahmed Hamad Al Gosaibi & Bros. Co., 23 N.Y.3d 129, 137, 989 N.Y.S.2d 458, 12 N.E.3d 456 [2014] [citation omitted]).  “[I]f the courts below considered the various relevant factors in making such a determination, ‘there has been no abuse of discretion reviewable by this [C]ourt,’ even if we would have weighed those factors differently” (Estate of Kainer v. UBS AG, 37 N.Y.3d 460, 467, 160 N.Y.S.3d 182, 181 N.E.3d 537 [2021], quoting Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 479, 478 N.Y.S.2d 597, 467 N.E.2d 245 [1984];  see id. at 467, 468, 160 N.Y.S.3d 182, 181 N.E.3d 537 n 3 [identifying relevant factors];  Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d at 479, 478 N.Y.S.2d 597, 467 N.E.2d 245 [same]).  Here, Supreme Court considered all relevant factors and made no legal error in doing so (see Kainer, 37 N.Y.3d at 467, 468 n. 3, 160 N.Y.S.3d 182, 181 N.E.3d 537).  Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, the court gave due weight to plaintiffs’ choice of forum.  That one plaintiff is a New York resident does not mandate a contrary result (see CPLR 327[a] [“The domicile or residence in this state of any party to the action shall not preclude the court from staying or dismissing the action”]).

Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   Plaintiffs failed to preserve their argument that a forum non conveniens dismissal is precluded by CPLR 327(b).

Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman, Halligan and Landicino concur. Judge Garcia took no part.