Tronlone v. Du Quebec

317 Citing cases

  1. Yattassaye v. City of N.Y.

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 31210 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017)

    The court's role in deciding a summary judgment motion is to determine whether there are any issues of fact and not to delve into or resolve issues of credibility (Vega v Restani Constr. Corp., 18 NY3d 499, 505, 942 NYS2d 13 [2012]). If the court is unsure whether a triable issue of fact exists, or can reasonably conclude that fact is arguable, the motion must be denied (Tronlone v Lac d'Amiante Du Quebec, Ltee, 297 AD2d 528, 528-29, 747 NYS2d 79 [1st Dept. 2002], affd 99 NY2d 647, 760 NYS2d 96 [2003]). The court's function on these motions is limited to "issue finding," not "issue determination."

  2. Carter v. Rah Lauren Corp.

    683 F. Supp. 3d 400 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    "In the absence of substantive difference, however, a New York court will dispense with choice of law analysis; and if New York law is among the relevant choices, New York courts are free to apply it." Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 363 F.3d 137, 143 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing J. Aron & Co. v. Chown, 231 A.D.2d 426, 427, 647 N.Y.S.2d 8 (1st Dept. 1996); Tronlone v. Lac d'Amiante Du Quebec, Ltee, 297 A.D.2d 528, 528, 747 N.Y.S.2d 79 (1st Dept. 2002), aff'd, 99 N.Y.2d 647, 760 N.Y.S.2d 96, 790 N.E.2d 269 (2003)). Here, Plaintiff alleges that she is a New Jersey citizen, who made her purchase in New York, from a corporation that is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in New York.

  3. Starr Indem. & Liab. Co. v. Brightstar Corp.

    388 F. Supp. 3d 304 (S.D.N.Y. 2019)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses

    "In the absence of substantive difference, however, a New York court will dispense with choice of law analysis; and if New York law is among the relevant choices, New York courts are free to apply it." Id. (citing J. Aron & Co. v. Chown, 231 A.D.2d 426, 647 N.Y.S.2d 8 (1st Dep't 1996), and Tronlone v. Lac d'Amiante Du Quebec, 297 A.D.2d 528, 528, 747 N.Y.S.2d 79 (1st Dep't 2002), aff'd 99 N.Y.2d 647, 760 N.Y.S.2d 96, 790 N.E.2d 269 (2003) ). Under both New York and Florida law, unambiguous terms in insurance contracts are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning.

  4. Perrone v. Amato

    CV 09-316 (AKT) (E.D.N.Y. Jun. 30, 2017)

    "In the absence of a substantive difference ... a New York court will dispense with choice of law analysis; and if New York law is among the relevant choices, New York courts are free to apply it." Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 363 F.3d 137, 143 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing J. Aron & Co. v. Chown, 231 A.D.2d 426, 647 N.Y.S.2d 8 (N.Y. App Div. 1996) (affirming application of New York law where there was no actual conflict with the substantive law of Newfoundland); Tronlone v. Lac d'Amiante Du Quebec, 297 A.D.2d 528, 528, 747 N.Y.S.2d 79 (2002), aff'd 99 N.Y.2d 647, 760 N.Y.S.2d 96, 790 N.E.2d 269 (2003) (affirming application of New York law where there was no relevant conflict between the substantive laws of New York and New Jersey)). Defendants argue that Florida law should apply to Plaintiff's fraudulent conveyance claims.

  5. Brewer v. Gem Indus. Inc.

    1:14-cv-00778 (MAD/ATB) (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2015)   Cited 5 times

    If there is no conflict, then a choice of laws analysis is entirely unnecessary, and the forum state may apply its own law to the case at hand, so long as the forum state is one of the relevant jurisdictions. See IBM v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 363 F.3d 137, 143-44 (2d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); Trolone v. Lac D'Amiante Du Quebec, Ltee, 297 A.D.2d 528, 528 (1st Dep't 2002), aff'd 99 N.Y.2d 647 (2003) (affirming the trial court's rejection of a choice of laws analysis and subsequent use of New York law, despite the appellant's assertion that New Jersey law be used, because there was "no relevant conflict" between the applicable laws of New York and New Jersey).

  6. Galeotti v. Cianbro Corp.

    5:12-cv-00900 (MAD/TWD) (N.D.N.Y. Jun. 24, 2013)   Cited 30 times

    If there is no conflict, then a choice of laws analysis is entirely unnecessary, and the forum state may apply its own law to the case at hand, so long as the forum state is one of the relevant jurisdictions. See IBM v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 363 F.3d 137, 143-44 (2d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); Trolone v. Lac D'Amiante Du Quebec, Ltee, 297 A.D.2d 528, 528 (1st Dep't 2002), aff'd 99 N.Y.2d 647 (2003) (affirming the trial court's rejection of a choice of laws analysis and subsequent use of New York law, despite appellant's assertion that New Jersey law be used, because there was "no relevant conflict" between the applicable laws of New York and New Jersey).

  7. Seale v. Newell

    1:02-CV-0979 (NAM/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Sep. 27, 2007)

    In the absence of substantive difference, however, a New York court is free to dispense with choice of law analysis and apply New York law. See id. (citing J. Aron Co. v. Chown, 231 A.D.2d 426, 426 (N.Y.App.Div. 1996) (affirming application of New York law where there was no actual conflict with the substantive law of Newfoundland); Tronlone v. Lac d'Amiante Du Quebec, 297 A.D.2d 528, 528 (2002), aff'd 99 N.Y.2d 647 (2003) (affirming application of New York law where there was "no relevant conflict" between the substantive laws of New York and New Jersey)). Critical to the ultimate determination of plaintiff's claims is whether the accident in this case occurred within the scope of plaintiff's and defendant Newell's employment at MIT.

  8. Treppel v. Biovail Corp.

    No. 03 Civ. 3002 (PKL) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 15, 2004)   Cited 26 times
    Finding the law of defamation and tortious interference sufficiently similar in New York and New Jersey, as to conclude no conflict exists

    Thus, in the absence of an actual conflict between the laws of New York and New Jersey, New York's choice of law rules dictate that New York law should apply to each of plaintiff's claims.See Curley, 153 F.3d at 12; see also G-I Holdings, 179 F. Supp. 2d at 250; Tronelone v. Lac d'Aminate du Quesbec, Ltee, 297 A.D.2d 528 (App.Div. 2002), aff'd 99 N.Y.2d 647 (2003) (affirming the application of New York law where no "relevant conflict" existed between substantive law of New York and Newfoundland). III. Standard under Rule 12(b)(6)

  9. Elmaliach v. Bank of China Ltd.

    110 A.D.3d 192 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 161 times
    Explaining choice of tort law analysis and noting "the locus of the tort generally defined as the place of the injury" and that the "jurisdiction where the tort occurred ... will almost always have the greatest interest in regulating conduct within its borders."

    To find that there is an “actual conflict,” the laws in question must provide different substantive rules in each jurisdiction that are “relevant” to the issue at hand and have a “significant possible effect on the outcome of the trial” ( Finance One Pub. Co. v. Lehman Bros. Special Fin., Inc., 414 F.3d 325, 331 [2d Cir.2005] [citations omitted], cert. denied548 U.S. 904, 126 S.Ct. 2968, 165 L.Ed.2d 951 [2006];see e.g. Caribbean Constr. Servs. & Assoc. v. Zurich Ins. Co., 267 A.D.2d 81, 82–83, 700 N.Y.S.2d 129 [1st Dept.1999] [choice of law analysis required where the claim of bad faith differed between New York and Virgin Islands law; Virgin Islands law did not require a showing that the egregious conduct was “aimed at the public generally,” in order to seek punitive damages]; compare Tronlone v. Lac d'Amiante Du Quebec, 297 A.D.2d 528, 747 N.Y.S.2d 79 [1st Dept.2002], affd.99 N.Y.2d 647, 760 N.Y.S.2d 96, 790 N.E.2d 269 [2003] [no choice of law analysis required where there was no relevant conflict between New York and New Jersey law with respect to the sufficiency of a plaintiff's showing of product identification and exposure in an asbestos case] ).

  10. Sawczyn v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.

    15 A.D.3d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 9 times

    I respectfully dissent. "It is axiomatic that summary judgment is a drastic remedy which should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue of fact . . . or where such issue is even arguable" ( Tronlone v. Lac d'Amiante Du Quebec, 297 AD2d 528, 528-529, affd 99 NY2d 647). The parties' experts provided sharply conflicting opinions whether defendant's delay in summoning medical care contributed to the injuries sustained by Michael Sawczyn (plaintiff). "`[C]onflicting expert opinions may not be resolved on a motion for summary judgment'" ( Pittman v. Rickard, 295 AD2d 1003, 1004), and the issue whether defendant's alleged negligence proximately caused plaintiff's injuries is properly left for the trier of fact ( see generally Brown v. State of New York, 192 AD2d 936, 937-938, lv denied 82 NY2d 654).