Katz v. Lazaroff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Katz v. Lazaroff

236 A.D.2d 257, 653 N.Y.S.2d 348

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 257 (Katz v. Lazaroff) 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

Katz v. Lazaroff, 236 A.D.2d 257, 653 N.Y.S.2d 348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about February 14, 1996 and February 26, 1996, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiff executor’s and plaintiff guardian ad litem’s complaints on the ground of forum non conveniens and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to consolidate the two actions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants have failed to meet the heavy burden of showing that plaintiffs’ selection of New York as a forum should be disturbed (see, Yoshida Print. Co. v Aiba, 213 AD2d 275). Defendants did not offer any evidence to demonstrate that any material witnesses would be burdened by proceedings in New York. Further, this litigation involving a simple one-vehicle accident, which occurred in Pennsylvania but which has a substantial nexus to New York, places little burden on our courts. Under these circumstances, the motion court’s determination to retain jurisdiction and to consolidate the actions was an appropriate exercise of discretion (see, Banco Ambrosiano v Artoc Bank & Trust, 62 NY2d 65, 73; Lamboy v Inter Fence Co., 196 AD2d 705). We have considered defendants’ other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered on or about February 14, 1996 and February 26, 1996, which, inter alia, denied defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiff executor’s and plaintiff guardian ad litem’s complaints on the ground of forum non conveniens and granted plaintiffs’ cross motion to consolidate the two actions, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants have failed to meet the heavy burden of showing that plaintiffs’ selection of New York as a forum should be disturbed (see, Yoshida Print. Co. v Aiba, 213 AD2d 275). Defendants did not offer any evidence to demonstrate that any material witnesses would be burdened by proceedings in New York. Further, this litigation involving a simple one-vehicle accident, which occurred in Pennsylvania but which has a substantial nexus to New York, places little burden on our courts. Under these circumstances, the motion court’s determination to retain jurisdiction and to consolidate the actions was an appropriate exercise of discretion (see, Banco Ambrosiano v Artoc Bank & Trust, 62 NY2d 65, 73; Lamboy v Inter Fence Co., 196 AD2d 705). We have considered defendants’ other claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 257, 653 N.Y.S.2d 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-lazaroff-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack