KOA Holdings Inc. v. Thornton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

KOA Holdings Inc. v. Thornton

208 A.D.2d 481, 617 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10549

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 481 (KOA Holdings Inc. v. Thornton) 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

KOA Holdings Inc. v. Thornton, 208 A.D.2d 481, 617 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10549 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, [482]*482Supreme Court, New York County (Peter Tom, J.), entered July 19, 1993, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens on condition defendants consent to the jurisdiction of Hawaii and waive any statute of limitations defenses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is clear that "the interest of substantial justice” and convenience warrants that this lawsuit be heard in Hawaii and not in New York (CPLR 327 [a]; see, Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 479). Not only is Hawaii an available forum and not only would most of the defendants and witnesses be inconvenienced by litigating this case in New York, but all of the alleged actions or omissions which form the basis of the instant lawsuit and complaint against the accounting defendants occurred in Hawaii (see, Bader & Bader v Ford, 66 AD2d 642, appeal dismissed 48 NY2d 649). Concur —Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, [482]*482Supreme Court, New York County (Peter Tom, J.), entered July 19, 1993, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens on condition defendants consent to the jurisdiction of Hawaii and waive any statute of limitations defenses, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

It is clear that "the interest of substantial justice” and convenience warrants that this lawsuit be heard in Hawaii and not in New York (CPLR 327 [a]; see, Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 479). Not only is Hawaii an available forum and not only would most of the defendants and witnesses be inconvenienced by litigating this case in New York, but all of the alleged actions or omissions which form the basis of the instant lawsuit and complaint against the accounting defendants occurred in Hawaii (see, Bader & Bader v Ford, 66 AD2d 642, appeal dismissed 48 NY2d 649). Concur —Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 481, 617 N.Y.S.2d 732, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koa-holdings-inc-v-thornton-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack