From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Rapid-American Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 29, 1997
239 A.D.2d 303 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

May 29, 1997

Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.).


The task of determining whether an action should be dismissed based on forum non conveniens (CPLR 372) is committed to the sound discretion of the motion court. Limiting our review to the facts and circumstances of the present case, under this standard we find no improvident exercise of discretion ( Yoshida Print. Co Aiba, 213 A.D.2d 275). We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Motion denied insofar as it seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals; insofar as reargument is sought, the motion is granted and thereupon this Court's unpublished decision and order entered on March 6, 1997 (Appeal No. 60209) is recalled and vacated and a new decision and order substituted therefor, decided simultaneoulsy herewith.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Tom and Andrias, JJ.


Summaries of

Smith v. Rapid-American Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 29, 1997
239 A.D.2d 303 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Smith v. Rapid-American Corp.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. JOSEPH W. SMITH et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 29, 1997

Citations

239 A.D.2d 303 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
658 N.Y.S.2d 858

Citing Cases

Ward v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litig.)

Finally plaintiff argues that defendant has taken advantage of this forum in this litigation for over 16…

Slattery v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (In re N.Y.C. Asbestos Litig.)

Finally plaintiffs argue that defendant has taken advantage of this forum in this litigation for over 16…