Carmack v. Woolworth

50 A.D.2d 516, 375 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12206

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 14, [517]*5171975, denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint on all proffered grounds except the claim of lack of personal jurisdiction (which issue was referred to a Special Referee to hear and report), unanimously affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellant $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. On the record before us, Special Term was justified in refusing to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens; or for failure to join the now adult son of the parties in the action (Schneider v Schneider, 17 NY2d 123; Forman v Forman, 17 NY2d 274.) Concur — Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lupiano and Nunez, JJ.

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

Carmack v. Woolworth, 50 A.D.2d 516, 375 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12206 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

50 A.D.2d 516 (Carmack v. Woolworth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Schneider v. Schneider
216 N.E.2d 318 (New York Court of Appeals, 1966)
Forman v. Forman
217 N.E.2d 645 (New York Court of Appeals, 1966)