Winmil Co. v. American Central Insurance

New York Supreme Court

Winmil Co. v. American Central Insurance

35 Misc. 2d 187, 230 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3181

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJune 7, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 Misc. 2d 187 (Winmil Co. v. American Central Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Winmil Co. v. American Central Insurance, 35 Misc. 2d 187, 230 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3181 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Jacob Markowitz, J.

Defendant moves, pursuant to subdivision 1 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice for dismissal of the complaint upon the ground of forum non conveniens. Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation, authorized to do business in New Jersey. Defendant is a Missouri corporation authorized to do business in New York, where it has its executive offices, and New Jersey. The suit is brought upon an insurance policy insuring, against fire, certain property located in New Jersey.

Plaintiff has not shown any special circumstances which would warrant the retention of jurisdiction in the face of the above facts (see Schlesinger v. Italian Line, 278 App. Div. 127). For the reasons stated, and in the exercise of the court’s discretion the defendant’s contention must be sustained (see Central Pub. Co. v. Wittman, 283 App. Div. 492).

[188]*188The motion is granted on the condition that defendant stipulate to accept service of process in New Jersey within three months from the date of the stipulation, and to waive the Statute of Limitations in such action. Settle order.

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

Jacob Markowitz, J.

Defendant moves, pursuant to subdivision 1 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice for dismissal of the complaint upon the ground of forum non conveniens. Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation, authorized to do business in New Jersey. Defendant is a Missouri corporation authorized to do business in New York, where it has its executive offices, and New Jersey. The suit is brought upon an insurance policy insuring, against fire, certain property located in New Jersey.

Plaintiff has not shown any special circumstances which would warrant the retention of jurisdiction in the face of the above facts (see Schlesinger v. Italian Line, 278 App. Div. 127). For the reasons stated, and in the exercise of the court’s discretion the defendant’s contention must be sustained (see Central Pub. Co. v. Wittman, 283 App. Div. 492).

[188]*188The motion is granted on the condition that defendant stipulate to accept service of process in New Jersey within three months from the date of the stipulation, and to waive the Statute of Limitations in such action. Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Misc. 2d 187, 230 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winmil-co-v-american-central-insurance-nysupct-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack