Rehm v. Ford Motor Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rehm v. Ford Motor Co.

245 A.D.2d 160, 665 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13116

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 160 (Rehm v. Ford Motor Co.) 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

Rehm v. Ford Motor Co., 245 A.D.2d 160, 665 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered July 3, 1996, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a car accident, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

The motion should not have been granted where the accident occurred in New York, plaintiff has an actual place of business in New York and defendants would not be prejudiced by having the action tried in New York (see, Brodherson v Ponte & [161]*161Sons, 209 AD2d 276; compare, Martin v Mieth, 35 NY2d 414). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Kapnick, J.), entered July 3, 1996, which, in an action for personal injuries sustained in a car accident, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs, the motion denied, and the complaint reinstated.

The motion should not have been granted where the accident occurred in New York, plaintiff has an actual place of business in New York and defendants would not be prejudiced by having the action tried in New York (see, Brodherson v Ponte & [161]*161Sons, 209 AD2d 276; compare, Martin v Mieth, 35 NY2d 414). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Tom, Mazzarelli and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 160, 665 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rehm-v-ford-motor-co-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack