Source: https://bruteforcelawyer.com/category/cplr/cplr-r-327/
Timestamp: 2019-02-22 21:21:26
Document Index: 525251660

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 510', '§ 6301', '§ 302', '§ 510', '§ 2', '§ 510', '§ 510', '§ 259']

Category: CPLR R. 327
CPLR 327
Blake v Blake, 2018 NY Slip Op 05973 [1st Dept 2018]
No basis exists to grant defendant's motion to transfer this matter to New Jersey. Under CPLR 327, the forum non conveniens statute, a court may not transfer a matter to another state, but may only stay or dismiss the action, relief defendant did not seek.
Author DMGPosted on September 11, 2018 Categories CPLR R. 327, [App Div 2d Dept]Leave a comment on CPLR 327
Author DMGPosted on July 10, 2012 Categories CPLR § 510, CPLR § 6301, CPLR R. 3211, CPLR R. 327, CPLR R. 511, [App Div 1st Dept], [App Div 2d Dept]Leave a comment on Personal Jurisdiction. Forum Non Con. Venue. Forum Selection.
Author DMGPosted on July 3, 2011 Categories CPLR § 302, CPLR § 510, CPLR R. 3211, CPLR R. 327, CPLR R. 511, [App Div 1st Dept], [App Div 2d Dept]Leave a comment on Venue and Jurisdiction
Forum Non Con (CPLR R. 327)
Matter of OxyContin II, 2010 NY Slip Op 06636 (App. Div., 2nd 2010)
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 327(a) to dismiss the complaints of the plaintiffs who reside outside of New York State is granted on condition that the defendants stipulate (1) that they will accept service of process in newly commenced out-of-state actions upon the same causes of action as those asserted in the instant complaints by the out-of-state plaintiffs; (2) that they will waive any defenses which were not available to them in New York at the time of service upon them of a copy of this decision and order; (3) that each deposition of any of their home-office employees taken by a plaintiff's counsel may be cross-noticed and deemed to be taken in all of the cases of that counsel; and (4) that, in the new forum, they will not raise any objection to having their home-office employees appear for deposition or trial on the ground of venue or location of the lawsuit; the out-of-state plaintiffs' time to commence the new actions shall [*2]be within 90 days after service of the stipulation upon the plaintiffs; and it is further,
The Court of Appeals has said that, "[o]rdinarily, nonresidents are permitted to enter New York courts to litigate their disputes as a matter of comity. Obviously, however, our courts are not required to add to their financial and administrative burdens by entertaining litigation which does not have any connection with this State. The common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens, also articulated in CPLR 327, permits a court to . . . dismiss such actions where it is determined that the action, although jurisdictionally sound, would be better adjudicated elsewhere" (Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 [footnote omitted]). The Supreme Court held that the actions brought by the nonresident plaintiffs should be adjudicated in New York State. We disagree and reverse, because we conclude that, although jurisdictionally sound, the actions brought by the nonresidents would be better adjudicated elsewhere.
On a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens, the burden is on the defendant challenging the forum to demonstrate that considerations relevant to private or public interest militate against accepting or retaining the litigation (see Prestige Brands, Inc. v Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 65 AD3d 1028, 1029; Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d 735, 736). "Among the factors the court must weigh are the residency of the parties, the potential hardship to proposed witnesses including, especially, nonparty witnesses, the availability of an alternative forum, the situs of the underlying actionable events, the location of evidence, and the burden that retention of the case will impose upon the New York courts" (Turay v Beam Bros. Trucking, Inc., 61 AD3d 964, 966; see Jackam v Nature's Bounty, Inc., 70 AD3d 1000, 1001; Tiger Sourcing [HK] Ltd. v GMAC Commercial Fin. Corporation-Can., 66 AD3d 1002, 1003). Also of importance, inter alia, is the extent to which the defendant will face particular difficulties in litigating the claim in this State (see Banco Ambrosiano v Artoc Bank & Trust, 62 NY2d 65, 73;Varkonyi v S.A. Empresa De Viacao Airea Rio Grandense [Varig], 22 NY2d 333, 338; Waterways Ltd. v Barclays Bank PLC, 174 AD2d 324, 327). In this case, these considerations weigh heavily against retaining the actions of the nonresident plaintiffs.
There is no significant dispute that the Oxycontin involved was not manufactured in New York, and the defendant's corporate offices are not located in this State. None of the nonresident plaintiffs purchased Oxycontin in New York, none ingested the drug here and, importantly, none received treatment for alleged resulting injuries in this State. Consequently, witnesses with critical information on both proximate cause and damages do not reside in New York. That fact presents substantial difficulties for the defendants inasmuch as New York courts lack the authority to subpoena out-of-state nonparty witnesses (see Judiciary Law § 2-b[1]; Wiseman v American Motors Sales Corp., 103 AD2d 230, 234 ["service of a subpoena on a nonparty witness outside this State is void because no authorization for such service exists"]). Moreover, "[u]nder[*3]established conflict of laws principles, the applicable law should be that of the jurisdiction which, because of its relationship or contact with the occurrence or the parties, has the greatest concern with the specific issue raised in the litigation'" (Matter of Doe, 14 NY3d 100, 109, quotingBabcock v Jackson, 12 NY2d 473, 481; see King v Car Rentals, Inc., 29 AD3d 205, 208). Thus, inasmuch as the hundreds of nonresident plaintiffs come from almost all of the 50 states and Puerto Rico, should New York courts retain those cases, they might well be called upon to apply different principles of law to identical claims. Moreover, under the circumstances presented here, we can find no strong counterbalancing consideration for retaining the cases of the out-of-state plaintiffs in our courts. Consequently, we find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, in order to ensure the availability of a forum for the claims of the nonresident plaintiffs, our reversal is conditioned on the defendants' entering into a stipulation as indicated herein (see Jackam v Nature's Bounty, Inc., 70 AD3d at 1002; Turay v Beam Bros. Trucking, Inc., 61 AD3d at 967; Brinson v Chrysler Fin., 43 AD3d 846, 848).
Author DMGPosted on October 2, 2010 Categories CPLR R. 327, [App Div 2d Dept]Leave a comment on Forum Non Con (CPLR R. 327)
Forum Non Con: CPLR R. 327
Tiger Sourcing (HK) Ltd. v GMAC Commercial Fin. Corporation-Canada, 2009 NY Slip Op 07828 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)
CPLR 327 "permits a court to stay or dismiss such actions where it is determined that the action, although jurisdictionally sound, would be better adjudicated elsewhere" (Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478-479, cert denied 469 US 1108). The defendant bears the burden in a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens to "demonstrate relevant private or public interest factors which militate against accepting the litigation" (id.). On such a motion, the Supreme Court is to weigh the parties' residencies, the location of the witnesses and any hardship caused by the choice of forum, the availability of an alternative forum, the situs of the action, and the burden on the New York court system (see Prestige Brands, Inc. v Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 65 AD3d 1028; Turay v Beam Bros. Trucking, Inc., 61 AD3d 964, 966). No one factor is dispositive (see Turay v Beam Bros. Trucking, Inc., 61 AD3d at 966; Brinson v Chrysler Fin., 43 AD3d 846, 848). The Supreme Court's determination should not be disturbed unless the court improvidently exercised its discretion or failed to consider the relevant factors (see Smolik v Turner Constr. Co., 48 AD3d 452, 453-454; Brinson v Chrysler Fin., 43 AD3d at 848).
Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting that branch of the defendants' joint motion which was to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens (see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474; Prestige Brands, Inc. v Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 65 AD3d 1028; Turay v Beam Bros. Trucking, Inc., 61 AD3d 964; Smolik v Turner Constr. Co., 48 AD3d 452; Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d 735, 736).
Author DMGPosted on November 8, 2009 Categories CPLR R. 327, [App Div 2d Dept]Leave a comment on Forum Non Con: CPLR R. 327
Author DMGPosted on October 5, 2009 Categories CPLR § 510, CPLR R. 327, CPLR R. 511, [App Div 2d Dept]Leave a comment on CPLR § 510; CPLR R. 511; Forum Non Con; Venue Selection Clause
When the court finds that in the interest of substantial justice the
action should be heard in another forum, the court, on the motion of
any party, may stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any
conditions that may be just. The domicile or residence in this state of
any party to the action shall not preclude the court from staying or
Turay v Beam Bros. Trucking, Inc., 2009 NY Slip Op 03510 (App. Div., 2nd, 2009)
New York courts are not compelled to retain jurisdiction over any case which does not have a substantial nexus to New York (see Silver v Great Am. Ins. Co., 29 NY2d 356, 361; Wentzel v Allen Mach., 277 AD2d 446, 447; United Jersey Bank v Weintraub, 240 AD2d 656; Dawson v Seenardine, 232 AD2d 521; Stamm v Deloitte and Touche, 202 AD2d 413; Manaster v Northstar Tours, 193
AD2d 651, 651-652). The doctrine of forum non conveniens, which
embodies this principle, is codified in CPLR 327(a): "When the court
finds that in the interest of substantial justice the action should be
heard in another forum, the court, on the motion of any party, may stay
or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be
just. The domicile or residence in this state of any party to the
action shall not preclude the court from staying or dismissing the
On a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens,
the burden is on the movant to demonstrate the relevant private or
public interest factors that militate against a New York court's
acceptance of the litigation (see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478-479, cert denied 469 US 1108; Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39
AD3d 735, 736). Among the factors the court must weigh are the
residency of the parties, the potential hardship to proposed witnesses
including, especially, nonparty witnesses, the availability of an
alternative forum, the situs of the underlying actionable events, the
location of evidence, and the burden that retention of the case will
impose upon the New York courts. No single factor controls, so that the
fact that a particular litigant resides in New York is not dispositive (see Smolik v Turner Constr. Co., 48 AD3d 452, 454; Kefalas v Kontogiannis, 44 AD3d 624, 625; Brinson v Chrysler Fin., 43 AD3d 846, 848; Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39
AD3d at 736). A court's determination will not be disturbed on appeal
unless that court failed to properly consider all the relevant factors
or improvidently exercised its discretion in deciding the motion (see Smolik v Turner Constr. Co., 48 AD3d at 454; Rosenberg v Stikeman Elliott, LLP, 44 AD3d 840, 841).
Here, even accepting that Turay is a resident of New York, the motion should have been granted (see Smolik v Turner Constr. Co., 48
AD3d at 453). The record establishes that the collision occurred in
North Carolina, and police and medical personnel from that state were
involved in the case and will likely be necessary and important
witnesses (see Cheggour v R'Kiki, 293 AD2d 507, 508). Moreover,
there is no record evidence, but only conclusory assertions, as to the
involvement of New York physicians (see Brinson v Chrysler Fin., 43
AD3d at 848). Also, the defendants have little or no connection to New
York. Further, the burden of adjudicating the case in New York, given
that North Carolina has the most significant nexus to the case,
militates against retaining the action in this state. Under the
circumstances, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion
in denying that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss
the case on the ground of forum non conveniens.
In order to assure the
availability of a forum for the action, our reversal and granting of
the branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the complaint
pursuant to CPLR 327 is conditioned on the defendants stipulating to
waive jurisdictional and statute of limitations defenses as indicated
herein (see CPLR 327[a]; Cheggour v R'Kiki, 293 AD2d at 507).
Author DMGPosted on May 2, 2009 Categories CPLR R. 327Leave a comment on CPLR R. 327
CPLR R. 3211(a)(1), CPLR R. 3211(a)(2), CPLR R. 327, and a forum selection clause
CPLR R. 3211(a)(1) a defense is founded upon documentary evidence
Lischinskaya v Carnival Corp., 2008 NY Slip Op 07875 (App. Div., 2d)
While we thus find that the forum selection clause upon which
Carnival relies does not contravene federal law, we nevertheless
conclude that the Supreme Court was incorrect in holding that
enforcement of that clause deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction.
"A court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when it lacks the competence
to adjudicate a particular kind of controversy in the first place" (Wells Fargo Bank Minn., N.A. v Mastropaolo, 42 AD3d 239, 243). The competence of the Supreme Court to adjudicate maritime tort cases has not been questioned (see e.g. Mulhern v Manhasset Bay Yacht Club, 43 AD3d 425; Ayala v S.S. Fortaleza, 40 AD3d 440; Hayes v City of New York, 34 AD3d 208; Smith v Lone Star Indus., 1 AD3d 860).
Rather, the defendant's argument here is that the jurisdiction of the
court has been divested by a term of the contract between the parties.
That argument has been rejected, for good reason, as "hardly more than
a vestigial legal fiction" (M/S Bremen v Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 US at 12).
"Subject matter jurisdiction . . . is not dependent upon the
state of facts which may appear in a particular case, arising, or which
is claimed to have arisen, under that general question" (Thrasher v United States Liab. Ins. Co., 19 NY2d 159, 166, quoting Hunt v Hunt, 72 NY 217, 229). As "a court of original, unlimited and unqualified jurisdiction" (Matter of Fry v Village of Tarrytown, 89 NY2d 714, 718, quoting Kagen v Kagen, 21 NY2d 532, 537; see Lacks v Lacks, 41 NY2d 71, 75), the Supreme Court of the State of New York cannot be divested of its jurisdiction even by the Legislature (see Pollicina v Misericordia Hosp. Med. Ctr., 82 NY2d 332, 339). It is axiomatic that a court cannot be divested of its subject matter jurisdiction by a contract (see Wm. H. Muller & Co. v Swedish American Line Ltd., 224 F2d 806, 808, cert denied 350 US 903; Sliosberg v New York Life Ins. Co., 217
App Div 685, 688-689). Thus, while the forum selection clause at issue
here may be enforceable as a term of the contract between the parties,
it does not affect the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (see LFC Lessors, Inc. v Pacific Sewer Maintenance Corp., 739 F2d 4, 6-7; Central Contracting Co. v Maryland Cas. Co., 367 F2d 341, 345).
We recognize that there is an ongoing debate in the federal
courts as to the nature of a dismissal pursuant to a contractual forum
selection clause (see Asoma Corp. v SK Shipping Co., Ltd., 467 F3d 817, 822; New Moon Shipping Co., Ltd. v MAN B & W Diesel AG, 121 F3d 24, 28; Licensed Practical Nurses, Technicians and Health Care Workers of New York, Inc. v Ulysses Cruises, Inc., 131
F Supp 2d 393, 402-409) and that we have, in the past, affirmed such
dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to CPLR
3211(a)(2) (see LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394; Fleet Capital Leasing/Global Vendor Fin. v Angiuli Motors, Inc., 15 AD3d 535).
These two cases should no longer be followed in that regard. As a term
of the contract between the parties, however, a contractual forum
selection clause is documentary evidence (see Trataros Constr., Inc. v New York City Hous. Auth., 34 AD3d 451, 452; Holiday Mgt. Assoc. v New York Inst. of Tech., 149 AD2d 462, 465; Siegel, NY Prac § 259 [4th ed]; see also 150 Broadway N.Y. Assoc., L.P. v Bodner, 14 AD3d 1) that may provide a proper basis for dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) (see Boss v American Express Fin. Advisors, Inc., 6 NY3d 242).
Since the Supreme Court was not without subject matter
jurisdiction of the action by virtue of the enforcement of the
contractual forum selection clause, it was not foreclosed from
considering the availability, upon dismissing the complaint, of
granting relief to the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 327. Nevertheless, we
affirm the Supreme Court's denial of the plaintiff's request for such
relief, on a different ground.
CPLR 327 articulates the common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens (see Islamic [*5]Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478, cert denied 469
US 1108; Alexander, Practice Commentaries, McKinneys Cons Laws of NY,
Book 7B, C327:1 [2001 ed]). It permits a court, in its discretion, to
impose "any conditions that may be just" when dismissing an action on
the ground that "in the interest of substantial justice the action
should be heard in another forum" (CPLR 327; see Demenus v Sylvester, 146 AD2d 668).
Here, however, the dismissal is not discretionary, but is the
necessary consequence of enforcing the contract between the parties. As
a result, considerations such as the impact of the dismissal on the
plaintiff and whether fatality to the plaintiff's claims can be
avoided, which are legitimate in applying CPLR 327 (see Singh v Zuidema, 221 AD2d 1020; Crown Cork & Seal Co. v Rheem Mfg. Co., 64 AD2d 545), where the court is balancing interests (see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474; Chawafaty v Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., 288
AD2d 58), are irrelevant. Rather, in this regard, the dismissal is
analogous to a dismissal based upon lack of personal jurisdiction,
where those considerations play no role (see Ehrlich-Bober & Co. v University of Houston, 49 NY2d 574, 579; Sanchez v Major, 289 AD2d 320, 321; Sarfaty v Rainbow Helicopters, Inc., 221 AD2d 618, 619; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 565).
Thus, contrary to the plaintiff's argument, even though the
Supreme Court had jurisdiction of the matter despite the forum
selection clause, it had no authority to grant discretionary relief to
the plaintiff pursuant to CPLR 327 once it determined that the contract
required that the complaint be dismissed. We therefore affirm the order
SANTUCCI, ANGIOLILLO and CARNI, JJ., concur.
Author DMGPosted on October 22, 2008 Categories CPLR R. 3211, CPLR R. 327Leave a comment on CPLR R. 3211(a)(1), CPLR R. 3211(a)(2), CPLR R. 327, and a forum selection clause