Case ID: ad3d_128/html/0615-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John R. Coelho, Respondent, v Grafe Auction Co. et al., Appellants.
    [11 NYS3d 13]
   Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered on or about July 28, 2014, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 327, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to defendants’ contention, this is not “one of the relatively uncommon [cases] in which dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds is required as a matter of law” (Mashreqbank PSC v Ahmed Hamad Al Gosaibi & Bros. Co., 23 NY3d 129, 138 [2014]). Rather, it is a standard case where “[t]he application of . . . forum non conveniens is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the trial court and the Appellate Division” (Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]).

We agree with the motion court’s denial of defendants’ motion to dismiss. While some of the factors relevant to a determination of a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens weigh in defendants’ favor, the balance is not so strongly in their favor as to disturb plaintiffs choice of forum (see Elmaliach v Bank of China Ltd., 110 AD3d 192, 208 [1st Dept 2013]). “[T]his is a multijurisdictional action with no single convenient forum amenable to all the parties” (Lawati v Montague Morgan Slade Ltd., 102 AD3d 427, 429 [1st Dept 2013]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.