Yun Ra v. Widrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yun Ra v. Widrow

82 A.D.3d 974, 918 N.Y.2d 737

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 974 (Yun Ra v. Widrow) 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

Yun Ra v. Widrow, 82 A.D.3d 974, 918 N.Y.2d 737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 327 (a) on the ground of forum non conveniens is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, and the resulting determination will not be set aside absent an improvident exercise of that discretion or a failure by the Supreme Court to consider the relevant factors (see National Bank & Trust Co. of N. Am. v Banco De Vizcaya, 72 NY2d 1005 [1988], cert denied 489 US 1067 [1989]; H & J Blits v Blits, 65 NY2d 1014 [1985]; Brinson v Chrysler Fin., 43 AD3d 846 [2007]). The factors to be considered on the motion include the residence of the parties, the burden on the New York court, the jurisdiction where the underlying acts occurred, the location of evidence and nonparty witnesses, the potential hardship to the defendants, and the availability of an alternative forum, with no one factor being dispositive (see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]; Brinson v Chrysler Fin., 43 AD3d 846 [2007]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the record shows that the Supreme Court appropriately considered all of the relevant factors in this case. Therefore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens (see e.g. Smolik v Turner Constr. Co., 48 AD3d 452 [2008]; Stamm v Deloitte & Touche, 202 AD2d 413 [1994]).

In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contentions. Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Belen, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

A motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 327 (a) on the ground of forum non conveniens is addressed to the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, and the resulting determination will not be set aside absent an improvident exercise of that discretion or a failure by the Supreme Court to consider the relevant factors (see National Bank & Trust Co. of N. Am. v Banco De Vizcaya, 72 NY2d 1005 [1988], cert denied 489 US 1067 [1989]; H & J Blits v Blits, 65 NY2d 1014 [1985]; Brinson v Chrysler Fin., 43 AD3d 846 [2007]). The factors to be considered on the motion include the residence of the parties, the burden on the New York court, the jurisdiction where the underlying acts occurred, the location of evidence and nonparty witnesses, the potential hardship to the defendants, and the availability of an alternative forum, with no one factor being dispositive (see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]; Brinson v Chrysler Fin., 43 AD3d 846 [2007]).

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the record shows that the Supreme Court appropriately considered all of the relevant factors in this case. Therefore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens (see e.g. Smolik v Turner Constr. Co., 48 AD3d 452 [2008]; Stamm v Deloitte & Touche, 202 AD2d 413 [1994]).

In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the plaintiff’s remaining contentions. Dillon, J.E, Leventhal, Belen, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 974, 918 N.Y.2d 737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yun-ra-v-widrow-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack