Evdokias v. Oppenheimer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Evdokias v. Oppenheimer

123 A.D.2d 598, 506 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60746

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 123 A.D.2d 598 (Evdokias v. Oppenheimer) 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

Evdokias v. Oppenheimer, 123 A.D.2d 598, 506 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60746 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover dam[599]*599ages, inter alia, for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), dated May 24, 1985, which granted the respective motions of the defendants Charles Banks and Samuel Zimmer and the cross motion of the defendant Kurt Oppenheimer to dismiss the plaintiffs complaint as to them on the ground of forum non conveniens.

Order affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Special Term properly exercised its discretion in granting the respondents’ respective motions and cross motion for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens pursuant to CPLR 327 (a). The respondents have met their burden of proof of establishing that New York is not a convenient forum (see, Bader & Bader v Ford, 66 AD2d 642, appeal dismissed 48 NY2d 649). To support their factual allegations, the respondents have demonstrated that a substantial majority of the witnesses and the documentary evidence is located in the Canadian Province of Quebec (see, Bewers v American Home Prods. Corp., 99 AD2d 949, affd 64 NY2d 630). Therefore, despite the fact that the respondents are residents of New York, the convenience of the parties warrants the adjudication of the instant litigation in Quebec (see, Silver v Great Am. Ins. Co., 29 NY2d 356). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover dam[599]*599ages, inter alia, for defamation, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.), dated May 24, 1985, which granted the respective motions of the defendants Charles Banks and Samuel Zimmer and the cross motion of the defendant Kurt Oppenheimer to dismiss the plaintiffs complaint as to them on the ground of forum non conveniens.

Order affirmed, with one bill of costs.

Special Term properly exercised its discretion in granting the respondents’ respective motions and cross motion for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens pursuant to CPLR 327 (a). The respondents have met their burden of proof of establishing that New York is not a convenient forum (see, Bader & Bader v Ford, 66 AD2d 642, appeal dismissed 48 NY2d 649). To support their factual allegations, the respondents have demonstrated that a substantial majority of the witnesses and the documentary evidence is located in the Canadian Province of Quebec (see, Bewers v American Home Prods. Corp., 99 AD2d 949, affd 64 NY2d 630). Therefore, despite the fact that the respondents are residents of New York, the convenience of the parties warrants the adjudication of the instant litigation in Quebec (see, Silver v Great Am. Ins. Co., 29 NY2d 356). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 598, 506 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evdokias-v-oppenheimer-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack