Munoz v. American Pacific Mining, New York, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Munoz v. American Pacific Mining, New York, Inc.

264 A.D.2d 622, 695 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9099

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

DecidedSeptember 16, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 622 (Munoz v. American Pacific Mining, New York, Inc.) 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

Munoz v. American Pacific Mining, New York, Inc., 264 A.D.2d 622, 695 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9099 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered April 21, 1998, which, in an action for personal injury arising out of an accident in [623]*623Honduras, inter alia, found that a Honduran court would award plaintiff only economic loss and then only upon a showing of gross negligence, and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as the appeal is from an order determining the substance of Honduran law, and not from a previous order, never appealed, holding that Honduran law governs all of the substantive issues herein, the applicability of Honduran law is not properly before this Court, although we note its likely applicability (see, Padula v Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 NY2d 519, 521; Cooney v Osgood Mach., 81 NY2d 66, 72-74). We agree with the IAS Court’s interpretation of Honduran law, and its finding that it does not offend New York public policy. There is no merit to defendants’ contention that the denial of their prior motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is not law of the case in view of this Court’s earlier decision in Munoz v American Pac. Min. (176 AD2d 624). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered April 21, 1998, which, in an action for personal injury arising out of an accident in [623]*623Honduras, inter alia, found that a Honduran court would award plaintiff only economic loss and then only upon a showing of gross negligence, and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Inasmuch as the appeal is from an order determining the substance of Honduran law, and not from a previous order, never appealed, holding that Honduran law governs all of the substantive issues herein, the applicability of Honduran law is not properly before this Court, although we note its likely applicability (see, Padula v Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 NY2d 519, 521; Cooney v Osgood Mach., 81 NY2d 66, 72-74). We agree with the IAS Court’s interpretation of Honduran law, and its finding that it does not offend New York public policy. There is no merit to defendants’ contention that the denial of their prior motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is not law of the case in view of this Court’s earlier decision in Munoz v American Pac. Min. (176 AD2d 624). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 622, 695 N.Y.S.2d 327, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/munoz-v-american-pacific-mining-new-york-inc-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack