Coelho v. Grafe Auction Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coelho v. Grafe Auction Co.

128 A.D.3d 615, 11 N.Y.S.3d 13

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 28, 2015·No. 15254 654404/13·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered on or about July 28, 2014, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 327, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to defendants’ contention, this is not “one of the relatively uncommon [cases] in which dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds is required as a matter of law” (Mashreqbank PSC v Ahmed Hamad Al Gosaibi & Bros. Co., 23 NY3d 129, 138 [2014]). Rather, it is a standard case where “[t]he application of . . . forum non conveniens is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the trial court and the Appellate Division” (Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]).

We agree with the motion court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss. While some of the factors relevant to a determination of a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens weigh *616 in defendants’ favor, the balance is not so strongly in their favor as to disturb plaintiffs choice of forum (see Elmaliach v Bank of China Ltd., 110 AD3d 192, 208 [1st Dept 2013]). “[T]his is a multijurisdictional action with no single convenient forum amenable to all the parties” (Lawati v Montague Morgan Slade Ltd., 102 AD3d 427, 429 [1st Dept 2013]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered on or about July 28, 2014, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 327, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to defendants’ contention, this is not “one of the relatively uncommon [cases] in which dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds is required as a matter of law” (Mashreqbank PSC v Ahmed Hamad Al Gosaibi & Bros. Co., 23 NY3d 129, 138 [2014]). Rather, it is a standard case where “[t]he application of . . . forum non conveniens is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the trial court and the Appellate Division” (Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]).

We agree with the motion court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss. While some of the factors relevant to a determination of a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens weigh *616 in defendants’ favor, the balance is not so strongly in their favor as to disturb plaintiffs choice of forum (see Elmaliach v Bank of China Ltd., 110 AD3d 192, 208 [1st Dept 2013]). “[T]his is a multijurisdictional action with no single convenient forum amenable to all the parties” (Lawati v Montague Morgan Slade Ltd., 102 AD3d 427, 429 [1st Dept 2013]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Coelho v. Grafe Auction Co., 128 A.D.3d 615, 11 N.Y.S.3d 13 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

128 A.D.3d 615 (Coelho v. Grafe Auction Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related