Summary
In Sadkin v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 224 A.D. 2d 303 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996), the New York Court of Appeals analyzed Bahamian law and determined that Bahamian law does not recognize the doctrine of strict products liability.
Summary of this case from Howard v. Kerzner Int'l Ltd.Opinion
February 20, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Schoenfeld, J.).
We agree with Avis that the causes of action for strict products liability and breach of warranty should be dismissed because Avis established that those claims are not recognized under Bahamian law, which applies here. Where conflicting conduct-regulating laws are at issue, the law of the jurisdiction where the tort occurred will generally apply because that jurisdiction has the greater interest in regulating behavior within its borders ( Padula v. Lilarn Props. Corp., 84 N.Y.2d 519, 522). Since the motor vehicle accident occurred in the Bahamas, the conduct-regulating laws of that jurisdiction apply. As Avis submitted an uncontroverted notarized legal opinion from a Bahamian attorney who concluded that no causes of action for breach of warranty and strict products liability exist under Bahamian law in these circumstances, those claims should be dismissed ( see, Hill v. Citicorp, 215 A.D.2d 117). We note that plaintiff's wrongful death cause of action against Avis survives. Avis's contention that the IAS Court abused its discretion in denying Avis's belated motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of forum non conveniens is without merit, particularly given the connections of decedent and Avis to New York.
We reject plaintiff's claim on cross appeal that she should be provided with more time to conduct discovery to determine whether service on American, which has been dismissed as a defendant in this action, constituted service on American's parent corporation, Suzuki. American made it clear from early on in this case that it had not made or distributed the vehicle involved in the fatal crash. Plaintiff offers no excuse as to why the parent corporation was never notified that it was the intended defendant. The IAS Court properly denied plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to the extent that it sought to add the parent corporation as a party, since, as to Suzuki, the Statute of Limitations has run on all proposed causes of action ( see, Christiansen v. City of New York, 144 A.D.2d 328, 328-329, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 710).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.