Shelton v. Cable Express, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shelton v. Cable Express, Inc.

275 A.D.2d 1017, 713 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9625

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 1017 (Shelton v. Cable Express, 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

Shelton v. Cable Express, Inc., 275 A.D.2d 1017, 713 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9625 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens (see, CPLR 327 [a]). Contrary to defendants’ contention, the occurrence of the motor vehicle accident in New York is not the only connection with this State. An eyewitness is a New York resident and, as a result of the investigation of the New York State Police, defendant William K. Glosser was cited for following too closely in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 (a) (cf., Dales v Tiessen, 231 AD2d 920; Singh v Zuidema, 221 AD2d 1020). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens (see, CPLR 327 [a]). Contrary to defendants’ contention, the occurrence of the motor vehicle accident in New York is not the only connection with this State. An eyewitness is a New York resident and, as a result of the investigation of the New York State Police, defendant William K. Glosser was cited for following too closely in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 (a) (cf., Dales v Tiessen, 231 AD2d 920; Singh v Zuidema, 221 AD2d 1020). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 1017, 713 N.Y.S.2d 603, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shelton-v-cable-express-inc-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack