From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fajardo v. Alejandro

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 31, 2015
126 A.D.3d 644 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

03-31-2015

Carlos FAJARDO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Rosa ALEJANDRO, Defendant–Respondent, John Doe, Defendant.

Raymond Schwartzberg & Associates, PLLC, New York (Raymond Schwartzberg of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of John Trop, Yonkers (David Holmes of counsel), for respondent.


Raymond Schwartzberg & Associates, PLLC, New York (Raymond Schwartzberg of counsel), for appellant.

Law Offices of John Trop, Yonkers (David Holmes of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Wilma Guzman, J.), entered April 10, 2014, which granted defendant Rosa Alejandro's motion to dismiss the complaint on forum non conveniens grounds, unanimously affirmed, with costs.This action, commenced in Bronx County, arises from an accident that occurred in New York County, in which plaintiff, a resident of Connecticut, allegedly was hit by a car owned by defendant, a resident of New Jersey. Defendant established that the only connection between the action and the State of New York is that the accident occurred here—an insufficient connection to warrant retention of the action in New York (see Economos v. Zizikas, 18 A.D.3d 392, 394, 796 N.Y.S.2d 338 [1st Dept.2005] ). The case has no connection at all to Bronx County. Plaintiff failed to show that there were special circumstances warranting retention (see id. at 393–394, 796 N.Y.S.2d 338 ; Bank Hapoalim [Switzerland] Ltd. v. Banca Intesa S.p.A., 26 A.D.3d 286, 287–288, 810 N.Y.S.2d 172 [1st Dept.2006] ). He submitted affidavits by two witnesses to the accident, neither of whom indicated that he lived in New York State or that testifying in another venue would pose any hardship.

As to plaintiff's expressed concern about the availability of an alternate forum, the parties acknowledge that, during the pendency of this appeal, plaintiff filed another action in Bergen County, New Jersey, and defendant waived his affirmative defenses based on jurisdiction and the statute of limitations.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining argument, which relies on conflict of laws principles, and find it unavailing.

TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, SAXE, MANZANET–DANIELS, KAPNICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fajardo v. Alejandro

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Mar 31, 2015
126 A.D.3d 644 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

Fajardo v. Alejandro

Case Details

Full title:Carlos FAJARDO, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Rosa ALEJANDRO…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Mar 31, 2015

Citations

126 A.D.3d 644 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 2696
4 N.Y.S.3d 495

Citing Cases

People v. Simmons

Defendants established that the only link between plaintiffs' lawsuit and New York State was the accident's…

Ortalano v. He

Defendants established that the only link between plaintiffs' lawsuit and New York State was the accident's…