Anagnostou v. Stifel
| Decision Date | 03 May 1994 |
| Citation | 611 N.Y.S.2d 525,204 A.D.2d 61 |
| Parties | Yorgos ANAGNOSTOU, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Niki STIFEL, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before ROSENBERGER, J.P., and ELLERIN, RUBIN, NARDELLI and WILLIAMS, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Myriam J. Altman, J.), entered on or about November 13, 1992, which, inter alia, granted the motion by defendants Niki Stifel and Sylvia de Cuevas to dismiss the action or stay all proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens to the extent of staying the action pending the outcome of litigation to be commenced by plaintiffs in Greece, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and the motion denied, without costs.
Generally, "[u]nless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed" (Waterways Ltd. v. Barclays Bank PLC, 174 A.D.2d 324, 327, 571 N.Y.S.2d 208, quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 843, 91 L.Ed. 1055). In this case, contrary to the IAS court, we find that defendants did not meet their heavy burden of demonstrating that plaintiffs' selection of New York as the forum for the within litigation is not in the interest of substantial justice (see, Banco Ambrosiano v. Artoc Bank & Trust, 62 N.Y.2d 65, 74, 476 N.Y.S.2d 64, 464 N.E.2d 432; CPLR 327[a].
Initially, we note that defendants have a particularly high burden to carry in light of the substantial delay in not raising their argument that New York is an inappropriate forum until three years had elapsed from commencement of the action and only after a significant degree of activity had already taken place, including defendants' unsuccessful motion for summary judgment and the commencement of discovery (see, ABKCO Ind. v. Lennon, 52 A.D.2d 435, 441, 384 N.Y.S.2d 781).
Furthermore, we find that a number of relevant factors militate in favor of permitting plaintiffs to proceed in the forum of their choice. First, the six paintings by Andy Warhol which are the subject of this dispute are located in New York. Indeed, the paintings have already been subjected to a preliminary injunction issued by the IAS court in this action prohibiting defendants from removing the paintings from New York or otherwise disposing of them.
Moreover, the moving defendants are New York domiciliaries and the decedent's estate, the nominal owner of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyle v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.
...inappropriate one” ( Banco Ambrosiano v. Artoc Bank & Trust, 62 N.Y.2d 65, 74, 476 N.Y.S.2d 64, 464 N.E.2d 432;see Anagnostou v. Stifel, 204 A.D.2d 61, 61, 611 N.Y.S.2d 525;see also Yoshida Print. Co. v. Aiba, 213 A.D.2d 275, 275, 624 N.Y.S.2d 128). On this record, the defendant has not met......
-
Elmaliach v. Bank of China Ltd.
...balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forumshould rarely be disturbed” ( Anagnostou v. Stifel, 204 A.D.2d 61, 61, 611 N.Y.S.2d 525 [1st Dept.1994] ), even where the plaintiff is not a resident of New York ( see OrthoTec, LLC v. Healthpoint Capital, LLC, 84......
-
Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Blavatnik, 650591/11.
...balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed." Anagnostou v. Stifel, 204 A.D.2d 61, 61, 611 N.Y.S.2d 525 (1st Dep't 1994). This is true even where the plaintiff is not a resident of New York. See OrthoTec, LLC v. Healthpoint Capit......
-
v. American
...[1st. Dept. 2006]; Mionis v. Bank Julius Baer & Co., Ltd., 9 A.D.3d 280, 780 N.Y.S.2d 323 [1st. Dept. 2004]; Anagnostou v. Stifel, 204 A.D.2d 61, 611 N.Y.S.2d 525 [1st. Dept. 1994]). When there is a substantial nexus between the action and New York, dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds......