Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
The doctrine of forum non conveniens “permits a court to stay or dismiss such 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, 478-79 [1984].)
The purpose of dismissal for forum non conveniens is so that New York Courts “should not be under any compulsion to add to their heavy burdens by accepting jurisdiction of a cause of action having no substantial nexus with New York.” (Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd. v. 3033 ICICI Bank, Ltd., 9 A.D.3d 171, 176 [1st Dept. 2004].)
“When the court finds that in the interest of substantial justice the actions should be heard in another forum, the court, on the motion of any party, may stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.” (Civ. Prac. Law & Rules, § 327(a).)
In determining a forum non conveniens claim, New York courts consider the balance of the following facts:
(Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 479 [1984]; Kinder Morgan Energy Partners v. Ace Am. Ins., 55 A.D.3d 482 [1st Dept. 2008].)
Matters which have little or no connection to New York are cases where dismissal for forum non conveniens is clearly supported by caselaw. (Rivera v. Parvez, 108 A.D.2d 640 [1st Dept. 1985].) The occurrence of a transaction in a foreign jurisdiction weighs heavily in favor of dismissal for forum non conveniens. (Hbouss v. Bank of Montreal, 23 A.D.3d 152, 152 [1st Dept. 2005].) New York courts consider whether “the transaction out of which the cause of action arose occurred primarily in a foreign jurisdiction.” (Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 479 [1984].) If so, the action should be heard in the jurisdiction where the conduct occurred. (Zelouf v. Republic Nat. Bank of New York, 225 A.D.2d 419 [1st Dept. 1996].)
A related consideration that militates in favor of dismissal is the location of witnesses and documents; New York courts often dismiss actions where the majority of fact witnesses are non-residents. (Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd. v. 3033 ICICI Bank, Ltd., 9 A.D.3d 171 [1st Dept. 2004].) Additional facts are the residency of the parties, the potential hardship to witnesses, the situs of the underlying actionable events, and the location of the evidence. (Turay v. Bean Bros. Tracking, Inc., 61 A.D.3d 964, 966 [2009].)
When a plaintiff is a non-resident of New York, it is the plaintiff’s burden to demonstrate that special circumstances exist warranting retention of the case in New York. (Blais v. Deyo, 92 A.D.2d 998 [3rd Dept. 1983].)
The principle of forum non conveniens is simply that a court may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of a general venue statute.” (Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 507 [1947].) Based on this principle, it is well-settled in New York that courts “need not entertain [litigation] lacking a substantial nexus with New York.” (P.T. Delami Garment Indus. V. Cassa di Risparmio di Torino, 164 Misc. 2d 38, 39-40 [N.Y. Sup. 1994].)
No single factor is controlling in the court’s determination of forum non conveniens; “the great advantage of the rule of forum non conveniens is its flexibility based upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” (Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 479 [1984]; Ghose v. CAN Reinsurance Co. Ltd., 43 A.D.3d 656, 660 [1st Dept. 2007].)
Kings County, NY
Jan 17, 2023
Torts - Other (Labor Law)
New York County, NY
Jan 09, 2023
Richard G. Latin
Herkimer County, NY
Jan 05, 2023
Charles C Merrell
Kings County, NY
Jan 05, 2023
Please wait a moment while we load this page.