Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Yun Ra, appellant, v. Herb Widrow, etc., respondent.
Submitted-February 23, 2011
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Loehr, J.), entered May 26, 2010, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens pursuant to CPLR 327(a), and denied that branch of her cross motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of liability as academic.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 327(a) on the ground of forum non conveniens is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, and the resulting determination will not be set aside absent an improvident exercise of that discretion or a failure by the Supreme Court to consider the relevant factors (see National Bank & Trust Co. of N. Am. v Banco De Vizcaya, 72 N.Y.2d 1005, cert denied 489 U.S. 1067; H & J Blits v. Blits, 65 N.Y.2d 1014; Brinson v. Chrysler Fin., 43 AD3d 846). The factors to be considered on the motion include the residence of the parties, the burden on the New York court, the jurisdiction where the underlying acts occurred, the location of evidence and nonparty witnesses, the potential hardship to the defendants, and the availability of an alternative forum, with no one factor being dispositive (see Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, cert denied 469 U.S. 1108; Brinson v. Chrysler Fin., 43 AD3d 846).
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the record shows that the Supreme Court appropriately considered all of the relevant factors in this case. Therefore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens (see e.g. Smolik v. Turner Constr. Co., 48 AD3d 452; Stamm v. Deloitte & Touche, 202 A.D.2d 413).
In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the plaintiff's remaining contentions.
DILLON, J.P., LEVENTHAL, BELEN, AUSTIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Matthew G. Kiernan
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2010-05738 (Index No. 3561 /10)
Decided: March 15, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)