Hoogenboom v. Gilmore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoogenboom v. Gilmore

278 A.D.2d 895, 719 N.Y.S.2d 791, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13653

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

DecidedDecember 27, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 895 (Hoogenboom v. Gilmore) 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

Hoogenboom v. Gilmore, 278 A.D.2d 895, 719 N.Y.S.2d 791, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13653 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order [896]*896unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied those parts of defendants’ motions and cross motions to dismiss the complaints upon the ground of forum non conveniens. That doctrine “should be applied only when it plainly appears that New York is an inconvenient forum and that the action has no nexus to this State” (Shepherd Showcase v Pekala, 138 AD2d 960, 961; see, Singh v Swan, 225 AD2d 1057, 1058). Defendants failed to establish that New York is an inconvenient forum and that the actions have no nexus to this State. The motor vehicle accident occurred in New York, the individual defendants reside in New York, and the corporate defendants conduct business in New York. Furthermore, the police officers who investigated the accident and the medical experts who initially treated plaintiffs are located in New York.

The court also properly denied those parts of defendants’ motions and cross motions seeking to have the law of the Province of Ontario, Canada applied herein. In cases involving domiciliaries of different jurisdictions that have conflicting loss allocation rules, “ ‘[njormally, the applicable rule of decision will be that of the state where the accident occurred but not if it can be shown that displacing that normally applicable rule will advance the relevant substantive law purposes without impairing the smooth working of the multi-state system or producing great uncertainty for litigants’ ” (Neumeier v Kuehner, 31 NY2d 121, 128, quoting Tooker v Lopez, 24 NY2d 569, 585; see, Schultz v Boy Scouts, 65 NY2d 189, 201). “[W]e perceive no persuasive reason to displace the law of this State in the circumstances of th[ese] case[s]” (LaForge v Normandin, 158 AD2d 990). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

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

Order [896]*896unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied those parts of defendants’ motions and cross motions to dismiss the complaints upon the ground of forum non conveniens. That doctrine “should be applied only when it plainly appears that New York is an inconvenient forum and that the action has no nexus to this State” (Shepherd Showcase v Pekala, 138 AD2d 960, 961; see, Singh v Swan, 225 AD2d 1057, 1058). Defendants failed to establish that New York is an inconvenient forum and that the actions have no nexus to this State. The motor vehicle accident occurred in New York, the individual defendants reside in New York, and the corporate defendants conduct business in New York. Furthermore, the police officers who investigated the accident and the medical experts who initially treated plaintiffs are located in New York.

The court also properly denied those parts of defendants’ motions and cross motions seeking to have the law of the Province of Ontario, Canada applied herein. In cases involving domiciliaries of different jurisdictions that have conflicting loss allocation rules, “ ‘[njormally, the applicable rule of decision will be that of the state where the accident occurred but not if it can be shown that displacing that normally applicable rule will advance the relevant substantive law purposes without impairing the smooth working of the multi-state system or producing great uncertainty for litigants’ ” (Neumeier v Kuehner, 31 NY2d 121, 128, quoting Tooker v Lopez, 24 NY2d 569, 585; see, Schultz v Boy Scouts, 65 NY2d 189, 201). “[W]e perceive no persuasive reason to displace the law of this State in the circumstances of th[ese] case[s]” (LaForge v Normandin, 158 AD2d 990). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Cayuga County, Corning, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 895, 719 N.Y.S.2d 791, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoogenboom-v-gilmore-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack