From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Payne v. Jumeirah Hospitality Leisure

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 14, 2011
83 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Summary

having affirmed forum non conveniens dismissal, "we need not consider whether the court should have dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from Fernie v. Wincrest Capital Ltd.

Opinion

No. 4811.

April 14, 2011.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered October 29, 2009, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants' motions only to the extent of dismissing the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Napoli Bern Ripka, LLP, New York (Denise A. Rubin of counsel), for appellant-respondent.

Kaplan, Massamillo Andrews, LLC, New York (Lawrence Mentz of counsel), for respondents-appellants.

Mayer Brown LLP, New York (John Conlon of counsel), for respondent-respondent.

Before: Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.


Plaintiff commenced this action for personal injuries sustained in an aquatic amusement park in Dubai. The motion court, presuming, without deciding jurisdiction ( see Bader Bader v Ford, 66 AD2d 642, 647, lv dismissed 48 NY2d 649), providently exercised its discretion in dismissing the action on forum non conveniens grounds ( see CPLR 327 [a]). The action was properly dismissed, even though plaintiff may have no alternative forum ( Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 481, cert denied 469 US 1108). Here, dismissal was warranted since the core team of consultants who performed services with respect to the amusement park were residents of Dubai or the United Kingdom ( see World Point Trading PTE. v Credito Italiano, 225 AD2d 153, 160-161), litigating the matter in New York would involve the applicability of foreign law ( see Shin-Etsu Chem. Co., Ltd. v ICICI Bank Ltd., 9 AD3d 171, 178), and Dubai is the situs of the alleged injury, and presumably the place where plaintiff received initial medical treatment ( see Gillenson v Happiness Is Camping, Inc., 14 Misc 3d 240, 244).

In view of the foregoing, we need not consider whether the court should have dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.

[Prior Case History: 2009 NY Slip Op 32514(U).]


Summaries of

Payne v. Jumeirah Hospitality Leisure

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 14, 2011
83 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

having affirmed forum non conveniens dismissal, "we need not consider whether the court should have dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from Fernie v. Wincrest Capital Ltd.
Case details for

Payne v. Jumeirah Hospitality Leisure

Case Details

Full title:LINCOLN PAYNE, Appellant-Respondent, v. JUMEIRAH HOSPITALITY LEISURE…

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

Date published: Apr 14, 2011

Citations

83 A.D.3d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 2965
921 N.Y.S.2d 229

Citing Cases

Primus Pac. Partners 1, LP v. Goldman Sachs Grp., Inc.

Moreover, because "on a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens, jurisdiction over the…

Payne v. Jumeirah Hospitality & Leisure (Usa) Inc.

That court dismissed the case on forum non conveniens grounds and its ruling was affirmed on appeal by the…