Ubirajara Da Costa Fonseca v. Frota Oceanica Brasileira, S. A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ubirajara Da Costa Fonseca v. Frota Oceanica Brasileira, S. A.

67 A.D.2d 636, 412 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10176

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

DecidedJanuary 11, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 67 A.D.2d 636 (Ubirajara Da Costa Fonseca v. Frota Oceanica Brasileira, S. A.) 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

Ubirajara Da Costa Fonseca v. Frota Oceanica Brasileira, S. A., 67 A.D.2d 636, 412 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10176 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 16, 1977, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal payable to appellants by respondents to grant defendants-appellants’ motions to dismiss these actions on grounds of forum non conveniens on condition that defendants-appellants stipulate to accept service of process in an action or actions to be commenced by plaintiffs in the State of Florida, to waive any defense of the Statute of Limitations therein and to use in the Florida litigation the discovery already achieved in these consolidated actions. If defendants-appellants fail to so stipulate within 30 days after service of the order entered hereon, the order is affirmed, with $75 costs and disbursements payable to respondents. Florida is clearly the most convenient forum for these actions for personal injuries sustained in that jurisdiction. Except for one plaintiff, a resident of Brazil, the plaintiffs are domiciled in Florida where they all received medical treatment. Defendants-appellants also expect to implead the Florida owners of the dock where the injuries were sustained, who are not subject to process in New York. In short, there are virtually no New York contacts with this litigation. Consequently, it was improvident for Special Term to have denied the motions to dismiss on the usual conditions which we have imposed upon granting similar motions. Concur — Lupiano, J. P., Silverman, Evans, Fein and Markewich, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered November 16, 1977, unanimously reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $75 costs and disbursements of this appeal payable to appellants by respondents to grant defendants-appellants’ motions to dismiss these actions on grounds of forum non conveniens on condition that defendants-appellants stipulate to accept service of process in an action or actions to be commenced by plaintiffs in the State of Florida, to waive any defense of the Statute of Limitations therein and to use in the Florida litigation the discovery already achieved in these consolidated actions. If defendants-appellants fail to so stipulate within 30 days after service of the order entered hereon, the order is affirmed, with $75 costs and disbursements payable to respondents. Florida is clearly the most convenient forum for these actions for personal injuries sustained in that jurisdiction. Except for one plaintiff, a resident of Brazil, the plaintiffs are domiciled in Florida where they all received medical treatment. Defendants-appellants also expect to implead the Florida owners of the dock where the injuries were sustained, who are not subject to process in New York. In short, there are virtually no New York contacts with this litigation. Consequently, it was improvident for Special Term to have denied the motions to dismiss on the usual conditions which we have imposed upon granting similar motions. Concur — Lupiano, J. P., Silverman, Evans, Fein and Markewich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 636, 412 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ubirajara-da-costa-fonseca-v-frota-oceanica-brasileira-s-a-nyappdiv-1979.