From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stamm v. Deloitte and Touche

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 7, 1994
202 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 7, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cannavo, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well established that New York courts are not compelled to retain jurisdiction in any case which has no substantial nexus to New York (see, Banco Ambrosiano v. Artoc Bank Trust, 62 N.Y.2d 65, 73; Silver v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 29 N.Y.2d 356, 361). The burden rests upon the defendant challenging the forum to demonstrate that private or public interests militate against litigation going forward in this State (see, Islamic Republic v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 479, cert denied 469 U.S. 1108; Bader Bader v. Ford, 66 A.D.2d 642). Among the factors which the court must weigh when deciding a motion to dismiss on such ground are the residency of the parties, the potential hardship to proposed witnesses, the availability of an alternative forum, the situs of the underlying action, and the burden which will be imposed upon the New York courts, with no one single factor controlling (see, Islamic Republic v. Pahlavi, supra; Neville v. Anglo Am. Mgt. Corp., 191 A.D.2d 240, 241-242). The motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and whatever result is reached will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court has failed to consider all the relevant factors (see, National Bank Trust Co. v. Banco De Vizcaya, 72 N.Y.2d 1005, cert denied 489 U.S. 1067; Islamic Republic v. Pahlavi, supra; Banco Ambrosiano v. Artoc Bank Trust, supra; Varkonyi v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Airea Rio Grandense [Varig], 22 N.Y.2d 333).

Upon consideration of all of the relevant factors involved, we find that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in dismissing the action on the ground of forum non conveniens (see, Islamic Republic v. Pahlavi, supra; Silver v Great Am. Ins. Co., supra; Bader Bader v. Ford, supra). Sullivan, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Stamm v. Deloitte and Touche

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 7, 1994
202 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Stamm v. Deloitte and Touche

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR STAMM et al., Appellants, v. DELOITTE AND TOUCHE, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 7, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 413 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
608 N.Y.S.2d 498

Citing Cases

Yun Ra v. Widrow

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the record shows that the Supreme Court appropriately considered all…

Wentzel v. Allen Machinery

costs, in the exercise of discretion, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed on condition that…