Goetz v. Hoffman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goetz v. Hoffman

238 A.D.2d 171, 655 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3215

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

DecidedApril 8, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D.2d 171 (Goetz v. Hoffman) 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

Goetz v. Hoffman, 238 A.D.2d 171, 655 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered November 3, 1995 which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay the action on the ground of forum non conveniens, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Upon consideration of the relevant factors, including the location of plaintiff’s principal office in New York, where the initial contact between the parties took place, the absence of any showing that defendant’s New Jersey witnesses will be inconvenienced by having to come to Manhattan, and defendant’s delay in seeking relief (see, Corines v Dobson, 135 AD2d 390, 392-393; Diversified Research Partners Ltd. Partnership v [172]*172Pollution Research & Control Corp., 198 AD2d 81), we agree with the IAS Court that the action should go forward in New York. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered November 3, 1995 which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay the action on the ground of forum non conveniens, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Upon consideration of the relevant factors, including the location of plaintiff’s principal office in New York, where the initial contact between the parties took place, the absence of any showing that defendant’s New Jersey witnesses will be inconvenienced by having to come to Manhattan, and defendant’s delay in seeking relief (see, Corines v Dobson, 135 AD2d 390, 392-393; Diversified Research Partners Ltd. Partnership v [172]*172Pollution Research & Control Corp., 198 AD2d 81), we agree with the IAS Court that the action should go forward in New York. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Nardelli and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 171, 655 N.Y.S.2d 949, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goetz-v-hoffman-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack