Chawafaty v. Chase Manhattan Bank

288 A.D.2d 58, 733 N.Y.S.2d 12, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10839
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 13, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 58 (Chawafaty v. Chase Manhattan Bank) 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
Chawafaty v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 288 A.D.2d 58, 733 N.Y.S.2d 12, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10839 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered August 7, 2000, which conditionally granted defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens, and order, same court and Justice, entered April 20, 2001, which upon grant of renewal, adhered to the prior order, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly balanced the appropriate factors (see, Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, cert denied 469 US 1108) and properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens, while imposing reasonable conditions designed to protect plaintiffs’ interests. This action lacks a substantial connection to New York and would be burdensome to its courts. This case primarily concerns transactions in an account that plaintiffs, citizens and residents of Egypt, opened in defendant’s branch located in Jersey, a Channel Island. While some of the transactions at issue were processed in New York for reasons relating to plaintiffs’ convenience, these were clearly incidental and do not create a significant nexus. Under these circumstances, the fact that defendant maintains its headquarters in New York does not establish that New York is an appropriate forum (see, Neuter, Ltd. v Citibank, 239 AD2d 213; see also, Trinity Inv. Trust v Morgan Guar. Trust Co., 275 AD2d 661). We note that plaintiffs would not be inconvenienced by a trial in Jersey, that most of the relevant witnesses and documents are located there, and that the courts of Jersey provide a suitable forum.

[59]*59We have considered and rejected plaintiffs’ remaining claims. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Buckley and Marlow, JJ.

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

Related

Bluewaters Communications Holdings, LLC v. Ecclestone
122 A.D.3d 426 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Elmaliach v. Bank of China Ltd.
110 A.D.3d 192 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Patriot Exploration, LLC v. Thompson & Knight LLP
75 A.D.3d 482 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Lischinskaya v. Carnival Corp.
56 A.D.2d 116 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Richtree Inc. v. Mövenpick Holding A.G.
301 A.D.2d 412 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Sunoco, Inc. v. Home Insurance
300 A.D.2d 19 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
288 A.D.2d 58, 733 N.Y.S.2d 12, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10839, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chawafaty-v-chase-manhattan-bank-nyappdiv-2001.