Cappellini v. United Technology of New York
| Citation | 79 A.D.2d 593,433 N.Y.S.2d 807 |
| Parties | Bruno CAPPELLINI, etc., as Administrator of the Estate of Haydee Nister Machado, Deceased, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. UNITED TECHNOLOGY OF NEW YORK et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 30 December 1980 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
K. Heller, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.
J. J. Finnerty, Jr., New York City, for defendants-appellants.
Before MURPHY, P. J., and SANDLER, ROSS, SILVERMAN and CARRO, JJ.
The order of this Court entered herein on November 20, 1980 is vacated, a new order substituted therefor, and the memorandum decision published therewith recalled, and the following memorandum substituted therefor:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 11, 1980, inter alia, granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on grounds of forum non conveniens on condition that they (A) agree within thirty days to enter their general appearance in an action commenced in Uruguay for the same causes of action and that (B) they will not raise the Statute of Limitations as a defense, is hereby modified on the law on facts and in the exercise of discretion to the extent of striking condition (A) and modifying condition (B) to substitute for the phrase "in these Uruguayan actions" the words "to any actions outside New York", and otherwise affirm, without costs.
In these New York actions for wrongful death and personal injuries to twenty-six spectators arising from the crash of two helicopters into the stands at an airshow in Montevideo, Uruguay, plaintiffs' complaints were dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens. The court conditioned its dismissal on defendants agreeing to appear in an Uruguayan action arising out of the same accident.
On appeal appellants argue, inter alia, that the doctrine of forum non conveniens requires dismissal of these actions; that Connecticut is the most suitable, convenient and appropriate forum in which these lawsuits ought to be litigated and that the action against United Technologies of New York City should be dismissed because uncontroverted evidence was submitted on defendant's motion which establishes that its functions in New York are purely of a public relations nature and that it was never engaged in the manufacture, repair or sale of the helicopters in question. Appellants further argue that Connecticut is the principal place of business of the primary defendant where all the records are kept and its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cesar v. United Technology of New York
...condition that the Statute of Limitations would not be raised as a defense in any action outside New York. Cappellini v. United Technology of N.Y., 79 A.D.2d 593, 433 N.Y.S.2d 807, lv. to app. den. 53 N.Y.2d 796, 56 N.Y.2d 984, 453 N.Y.S.2d 681, 439 N.E.2d Actions were then commenced in the......
-
Stajano v. United Tech. Corp. of New York City, 2002 NY Slip Op 30112(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 10/8/2002)
...and 3595/80 (Aparicio). 3. The early procedural history of these cases can be gleaned from Cappellini v. United Technology of New York, 79 A.D.2d 593 (1st Dept. 1980) (conditionally dismissing actions and allowing them to be instituted in Uruguay or Connecticut) and Cesar v. United Technolo......
-
Cesar v. United Technology of New York
...outside New York, after a prior New York County action was dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds. (Cappellini v. United Technology of New York, 79 A.D.2d 593, 433 N.Y.S.2d 807, appeal dismissed, 56 N.Y.2d 984, 453 N.Y.S.2d 681, 439 N.E.2d Defendants now argue that it was improper for th......
-
Cappellini v. United Technology of New York
...costs, by the Court sua sponte, upon the ground that the order of the Appellate Division made on a prior appeal in the action, 79 A.D.2d 593, 433 N.Y.S.2d 807, does not satisfy the requirements of CPLR 5601(a)(iii) for an appeal as of right, in that the modification was not in a "respect, w......