Bois v. PV Holding Corp.

• Decision Date: 16 December 2021
• Docket Number: Index 150892/2021
• Citation: 2021 NY Slip Op 33012 (U)
• Parties: KAPEDJANIE BOIS, Plaintiff, v. PV HOLDING CORP. and JOHAN EZRA SENTANA, Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

2021 NY Slip Op 33012(U)

KAPEDJANIE BOIS, Plaintiff, v. PV HOLDING CORP. and JOHAN EZRA SENTANA, Defendants.

Index No. 150892/2021

Supreme Court, Richmond County

December 16, 2021

Unpublished Opinion

DECISION AND ORDER

HON WAYNE M. OZZI, J.S.C.

By motion dated August 30, 2021, Defendant PV Holding Corp. ("PV Holding") moves this Court for a Order dismissing the instant action on grounds of forum non conveniens pursuant to CPLR 327 and for summary judgment on the grounds that defendant is not a proper party to the action as it is immune from claims of vicarious liability pursuant to the Graves Amendment. 42 U.S.C. 30106. Plaintiff and Defendant Johan Ezra Sentana ("Sentana") oppose PV Holding's motion.

The instant matter arises from an automobile accident which occurred on May 5, 2018 when the vehicle driven by Defendant Johan Ezra Sentana, a resident of Tennessee, rear ended the vehicle driven by Plaintiff, a resident of Rhode Island. The vehicle that was operated by Sentana was owned by Defendant PV Holding Corp ("PV Holding"), a Pennsylvania corporation.

PV Holding's motion to dismiss the instant action based on forum non conveniens is denied. The doctrine of forum non conveniens "permits a court to dismiss an action when although it may have jurisdiction over a claim, the court determines that 'in the interest of substantial justice the action should e heard in another forum.'" National Bank & Trust Co. of N. Am. v. Banco De Viscava, 72 N.Y.2d 1005, 1007 (1988), quoting CPLR 327(a). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that relevant public or private interest factors militate against a New York court's acceptance of the action. Wild v. University of Pennsylvania, 115 A.D.3d 944 (2d Dept 2014). When making its determination, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the residency of the parties, (2) the potential hardship to witnesses "including, especially nonparty witnesses" (Wild v. University of Pennsylvania supra at 945), (3) the availability of an alternate forum; (4) the situs of the events underlying the instant action, (5) the location of evidence, (6) the burden that retaining the case would impose upon New York courts. Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y, 2d 474 (1984); see also Wild v. University of Pennsylvania, supra; Turay v. Beam Bros. Trucking, Inc., 61 A.D.3d 964, 966 (2d Dept 2009).

In the matter presently before the Court, a weighing of the above factors militates against dismissing the matter on grounds of forum non conveniens. See Coelho v. Grafe Auction Co., 128 A.D.3d 615 (2d Dept 2015). First, none of the parties reside in the same jurisdiction. Plaintiff is a resident of Rhode Island, Defendant Sentana is a resident of Tennessee, and Defendant PV Holding Corp is a Pennsylvania Corporation. None of the parties have connections to each others' respective domiciles. However, Defendant PV Holdings is registered to do business in New York and, as Plaintiff points out, New York is the most convenient forum for parties residing in the three different states, there being over 1, 000 miles between Rhode Island and Tennessee and 600 miles between Rhode Island and Pennsylvania. See Plaintiffs Opposition p. 6. Thus, the first and third factors weigh in favor of keeping the matter in New York.

Similarly the second, fourth and fifth factors militate against dismissing the matter on grounds of forum non conveniens. The accident underlying this action took place in Staten Island, New York. The police report and the police officer witness who arrived to the scene of...