Amlon Metals, Inc. v. Liu

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amlon Metals, Inc. v. Liu

292 A.D.2d 163, 738 N.Y.S.2d 198, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2273

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 5, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 163 (Amlon Metals, Inc. v. Liu) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amlon Metals, Inc. v. Liu, 292 A.D.2d 163, 738 N.Y.S.2d 198, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2273 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered February 6, 2001, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion for an or[164]*164der of attachment, and order, same court and Justice, entered May 23, 2001, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff adduced evidence that, given the benefit of all legitimate inferences and deductions (see, Considar, Inc. v Redi Corp. Establishment, 238 AD2d 111), sufficiently fulfills its obligation to demonstrate that it is probable that it will succeed on the merits (CPLR 6212 [a]) and that it is otherwise entitled to an attachment (CPLR 6201 [1]). That defendant’s alleged conversion and other torts were committed in China, that some of defendant’s prospective witnesses reside there and that Chinese law may govern do not present a balance of factors which so strongly favor defendant that they warrant disturbing plaintiff’s choice of a forum in New York where plaintiff has its principal place of business and defendant owns real estate and maintains a bank account (cf., Sweeney v Hertz Corp., 250 AD2d 385, 386). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered February 6, 2001, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion for an or[164]*164der of attachment, and order, same court and Justice, entered May 23, 2001, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff adduced evidence that, given the benefit of all legitimate inferences and deductions (see, Considar, Inc. v Redi Corp. Establishment, 238 AD2d 111), sufficiently fulfills its obligation to demonstrate that it is probable that it will succeed on the merits (CPLR 6212 [a]) and that it is otherwise entitled to an attachment (CPLR 6201 [1]). That defendant’s alleged conversion and other torts were committed in China, that some of defendant’s prospective witnesses reside there and that Chinese law may govern do not present a balance of factors which so strongly favor defendant that they warrant disturbing plaintiff’s choice of a forum in New York where plaintiff has its principal place of business and defendant owns real estate and maintains a bank account (cf., Sweeney v Hertz Corp., 250 AD2d 385, 386). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Lerner, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 163, 738 N.Y.S.2d 198, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amlon-metals-inc-v-liu-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack