H & J Blits, Inc. v. Blits

New York Court of Appeals

H & J Blits, Inc. v. Blits

65 N.Y. 1014

DecidedSeptember 12, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 65 N.Y. 1014 (H & J Blits, Inc. v. Blits) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

H & J Blits, Inc. v. Blits, 65 N.Y. 1014 (N.Y. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, with costs, and case remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for full reconsideration of defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. Whether an action should be dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens is a matter of discretion for the trial court and the Appellate Division, and the exercise of that discretion will not be interfered with by this court unless there has been an abuse of discretion, or, in exercising its discretion, the court has failed to take into account the various factors entitled to consideration. (See, Belachew v Michael, 59 NY2d 1004; Irrigation & Indus. Dev. Corp. v Indag S.A., 37 NY2d 522.) Here, it would appear, as the dissenters at the [1016]*1016Appellate Division found, that the trial court, on whose reasoning the Appellate Division affirmed, did not consider all the relevant factors which would best serve the ends of justice and convenience of the parties.

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order reversed, with costs, and case remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for full reconsideration of defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint. Whether an action should be dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens is a matter of discretion for the trial court and the Appellate Division, and the exercise of that discretion will not be interfered with by this court unless there has been an abuse of discretion, or, in exercising its discretion, the court has failed to take into account the various factors entitled to consideration. (See, Belachew v Michael, 59 NY2d 1004; Irrigation & Indus. Dev. Corp. v Indag S.A., 37 NY2d 522.) Here, it would appear, as the dissenters at the [1016]*1016Appellate Division found, that the trial court, on whose reasoning the Appellate Division affirmed, did not consider all the relevant factors which would best serve the ends of justice and convenience of the parties.

Concur: Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 N.Y. 1014, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/h-j-blits-inc-v-blits-ny-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack