ROSENBERG v. STIKEMAN ELLIOTT LLP (2007)

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated September 28, 2006, which denied its motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the motion to dismiss the complaint is granted.

 “The common law doctrine of forum non conveniens, also articulated in CPLR 327(a), permits a court to stay or dismiss ․ actions where it is determined that the action, although jurisdictionally sound, would be better adjudicated elsewhere” (Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 478-479, 478 N.Y.S.2d 597, 467 N.E.2d 245, cert. denied 469 U.S. 1108, 105 S.Ct. 783, 83 L.Ed.2d 778).   In a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens, the burden is on the defendant challenging the forum to demonstrate relevant private or public interest factors which militate against accepting the litigation in that forum (id. at 479, 478 N.Y.S.2d 597, 467 N.E.2d 245;  see Stravalle v. Land Cargo, Inc., 39 A.D.3d 735, 736, 835 N.Y.S.2d 606;  Korea Exch. Bank v. A.A. Trading Co., 8 A.D.3d 344, 777 N.Y.S.2d 736).   The court has discretion whether to retain jurisdiction (see National Bank & Trust Co. of N. Am. v. Banco De Vizcaya, 72 N.Y.2d 1005, 1007, 534 N.Y.S.2d 913, 531 N.E.2d 634, cert. denied 489 U.S. 1067, 109 S.Ct. 1343, 103 L.Ed.2d 812;  Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d at 479, 478 N.Y.S.2d 597, 467 N.E.2d 245).   The court's determination will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court has failed to properly consider all of the relevant factors (see Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d at 479, 478 N.Y.S.2d 597, 467 N.E.2d 245;  Cheggour v. R'Kiki, 293 A.D.2d 507, 508, 740 N.Y.S.2d 391).   Among the factors the court must weigh are “the residency of the parties, the potential hardship to proposed witnesses, the availability of an alternative forum, the situs of the underlying action, and the burden which will be imposed upon the New York courts, with no one single factor controlling” (Wentzel v. Allen Mach., 277 A.D.2d 446, 447, 716 N.Y.S.2d 699;  see Economos v. Zizikas, 18 A.D.3d 392, 394, 796 N.Y.S.2d 338;  Shin-Etsu Chem. Co., Ltd. v. ICICI Bank Ltd., 9 A.D.3d 171, 175, 777 N.Y.S.2d 69;  Harleysville Ins. Co. v. Ermar Painting & Contr., Inc., 8 A.D.3d 229, 777 N.Y.S.2d 661).

 The Supreme Court failed to indicate that it considered any of the relevant factors (see National Bank & Trust Co. of N. Am. v. Banco De Vizcaya, 72 N.Y.2d at 1007, 534 N.Y.S.2d 913, 531 N.E.2d 634;  Stravalle v. Land Cargo, Inc., 39 A.D.3d at 736, 835 N.Y.S.2d 606).   These factors strongly militate against adjudicating the action in the Supreme Court (see Martin v. Mieth, 35 N.Y.2d 414, 418, 362 N.Y.S.2d 853, 321 N.E.2d 777;  Dawson v. Seenardine, 232 A.D.2d 521, 648 N.Y.S.2d 681;  Zelouf v. Republic Natl. Bank of N.Y., 225 A.D.2d 419, 640 N.Y.S.2d 15;  Manaster v. Northstar Tours, 193 A.D.2d 651, 651-652, 598 N.Y.S.2d 7).   It is undisputed that the plaintiff's legal malpractice and recoupment claims against the defendant all arose out of probate actions undertaken in Montreal, Canada, by Canadian attorneys, to which Canadian law would be applicable.   Even if the plaintiff possesses residences or domiciles both in New York and Canada (see Westwood Assoc. v. Deluxe Gen., 53 N.Y.2d 618, 619, 438 N.Y.S.2d 774, 420 N.E.2d 966;  Holness v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 251 A.D.2d 220, 224, 676 N.Y.S.2d 540), she already had availed herself of Canadian courts in the past, not only in the related probate action, but also in an almost identical matter involving the payment of legal fees for the probate matter (see Hbouss v. Bank of Montreal, 23 A.D.3d 152, 803 N.Y.S.2d 520;  Stockacre Ltd. v. PepsiCo, Inc., 265 A.D.2d 398, 399, 696 N.Y.S.2d 500).

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens (see National Bank & Trust Co. of N. Am. v. Banco De Vizcaya, 72 N.Y.2d 1005, 534 N.Y.S.2d 913, 531 N.E.2d 634;  Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 478 N.Y.S.2d 597, 467 N.E.2d 245;  Stravalle v. Land Cargo, Inc., 39 A.D.3d at 736, 835 N.Y.S.2d 606;  Wentzel v. Allen Mach., 277 A.D.2d at 446, 716 N.Y.S.2d 699).