Avins v. Weeks

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Avins v. Weeks

78 A.D.2d 800, 433 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13464

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 A.D.2d 800 (Avins v. Weeks) 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

Avins v. Weeks, 78 A.D.2d 800, 433 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 8,1980, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of denying the motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens as to defendant Liotti, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff-appellant and respondent Weeks are nonresidents of this State. The material events underlying this cause of action arose in Delaware, the jurisdiction to which this action has been relegated. In balancing the interests and convenience of all parties, as indeed we must, it is apparent that the action against Weeks was properly dismissed since, as to him, there is no real or substantial nexus with New York. However, Special Term erred in dismissing this action against defendant Liotti. This defendant, a New York resident, was served in New York and yet failed to appear in this action. Under these circumstances it was improper to decline jurisdiction. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Yesawich and Carro, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 8,1980, unanimously modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, to the extent of denying the motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens as to defendant Liotti, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Plaintiff-appellant and respondent Weeks are nonresidents of this State. The material events underlying this cause of action arose in Delaware, the jurisdiction to which this action has been relegated. In balancing the interests and convenience of all parties, as indeed we must, it is apparent that the action against Weeks was properly dismissed since, as to him, there is no real or substantial nexus with New York. However, Special Term erred in dismissing this action against defendant Liotti. This defendant, a New York resident, was served in New York and yet failed to appear in this action. Under these circumstances it was improper to decline jurisdiction. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Ross, Yesawich and Carro, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 A.D.2d 800, 433 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avins-v-weeks-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack