Gurl v. Titan Racing, Inc., 2007 NY Slip Op 31719(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 6/12/2007), 0105394/2006.
| Decision Date | 12 June 2007 |
| Docket Number | 0105394/2006. |
| Citation | 2007 NY Slip Op 31719 |
| Parties | MATTHEW GURL, Plaintiff, v. TITAN RACING, INC., HILL CONSTRUCTION CORP., THOMAS HILL, CARROLL MARINE, LTD., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
This action seeks recovery for personal injury allegedly caused by the negligence of defendant Carroll Marine, Ltd., ("Carroll") and the unseaworthiness of the Titan XII, a racing yacht built by defendant. Defendant Carroll has made a motion for a change of venue to Suffolk County or dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds and moves for summary judgment. Plaintiff has opposed and made a cross motion to retain venue in New York County and to strike Carroll's fourth affirmative defense that all claims against it are time-barred by Rhode Island law for dissolved corporations.
Plaintiff avers the following. On July 31, 2003, plaintiff was employed as a seaman on the vessel Titan XII ("Vessel") by co-defendants Titan Racing, Inc., Hill Construction Corp., and Thomas Hill. Aff. of Matthew Gurl, para. 1. The vessel was participating in a race around Long Island called the "Around Long Island Regatta." Id., para. 3.
The night before the race, plaintiff and other crewmembers from the vessel were quartered at the New York Yacht Club headquarters in New York County. Gurl Aff., para. 4. The vessel was moored at the southern tip of Manhattan in New York County and set sail from there on the morning of the race. Id., para. 5. The vessel docked in the Bronx at the conclusion of the race. Id.
In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that during the race, it was discovered that the vessel was taking on water through a defective deck fitting. Water was accumulating in the hull of the vessel. Plaintiff was sent below deck to try to remove the water collected in the hull and to staunch the flow of water. The hull lacked sufficient hand-holds, anti-skid coating, and lighting. Plaintiff alleges that these and other faults made the vessel unseaworthy and defendants negligent. In attempting to perform his duties, plaintiff fell numerous times and suffered serious personal injury. As a result, plaintiff has past and future medical expenses for physical and mental pain and will be disabled from performing his usual duties, occupations, and avocations.
At the time of plaintiff's accident, the vessel was operating in international waters off the southern coast of Fire Island in Suffolk County. Gull Aff., para. 3. However, the vessel did not put into any Suffolk County port, and no one from the vessel set foot in Suffolk County. Id., para. 8.
The amended complaint states that the Titan XII was a racing yacht owned and operated by co-defendants Titan Racing, Inc., Hill Construction Corp., and Thomas Hill. The vessel's home port was Newport, Rhode Island, but it has participated in races at various ports along the eastern seaboard of the United States, including several races in and through New York state waters. None of the parties is a resident of New York.
Plaintiff avers that Titan Racing, Inc. is incorporated in Delaware; Hill Construction Corp. is incorporated in Puerto Rico, and Thomas Hill is a resident of Puerto Rico. Gurl Aff., para. 6. Plaintiff is a resident of Rhode Island. Id. Carroll is incorporated in Rhode Island. Id.., para. 7. Plaintiff presents an online article from Sailing World stating that Carroll was a $10 million business with a worldwide market. Affirmation of Joseph E. Donat, Ex. A. Carroll manufactured the vessel for the co-defendants. Gurl Aff., para. 1.
Defendant, by its former President Barry C. Carroll, avers the following. Carroll was incorporated in Rhode Island in 1984. Aff. of Barry C. Carroll, para. 2. The vessel was assembled, purchased, and registered in Rhode Island. Id., para. 12-13. Other firms were responsible for designing the vessel, providing assembly instructions for the vessel, and providing structural engineering. Id., para. 8. The pin that allegedly failed in the vessel was supplied by a third party. Id., para. 9. Carroll was formally dissolved in accordance with Rhode Island law on January 6, 2004, and a certificate of dissolution was issued by the Rhode Island Secretary of State. Id., para. 3-4, Ex. 1. Carroll has not conducted any business since its dissolution, currently has no employees, agents or representatives authorized to act upon its behalf in New York or elsewhere, and distributed all assets at the time of dissolution. Id., para. 5-7. Defendant avers that prior to its dissolution, Carroll had not conducted any business with or in the State of New York since at least the mid 1980s.
Plaintiff filed the instant action against co-defendants Titan Racing, Inc., Hill Construction Corp., and Thomas Hill on April 19, 2006. Aff. of Alfred J. Will, para. 7. The complaint was amended to name Carroll Marine, Ltd. as a defendant on July 27, 2006. Id.
A tort claim falls within federal admiralty jurisdiction when two requirements are met: (1) the wrong must take place on navigable waters (location requirement); and (2) it must bear a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity (connection requirement). Jerome B. Grubart v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527, 534 (1995); See also O'Hara v. Bayliner, 89 N.Y.2d 636 (1997). Maritime law permits tort claims involving personal injury from allegedly defective products based on negligence and strict liability. East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, 476 U.S. 858, 865-866 (1986); Smith v. Mitlof, 198 F. Supp. 2d 492, 502 (2002).
While federal courts have primary jurisdiction over maritime torts, state courts have concurrent jurisdiction of tort actions in personam under the "saving to suitors" clause of the statute conferring admiralty jurisdiction. Scholl v. Babylon, 95 A.D.2d 475, 481 (2nd Dept. 1983); 28 U.S.C. § 1333. Plaintiffs have the option of seeking common-law remedies for maritime torts in state court, but federal maritime law governs with respect to the rights and liabilities of the parties regardless of whether the action is brought in a state or federal court. See Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (2001); Scholl, 95 A.D.2d at 481. Substantive remedies afforded by the states must conform to governing federal maritime standards. O'Hara, 89 N.Y.2d at 646.
Plaintiff's accident occurred on board the vessel in international waters, meeting the location requirement. The actions leading to his accident were performed as part of plaintiff's duties as a seaman employed on the vessel and fall under traditional maritime activity. It is undisputed that the instant action is a maritime tort claim within federal admiralty jurisdiction. Since the action was filed in state court, plaintiff must meet the requirements for venue and personal jurisdiction in New York.
New York CPLR. 503(a), the general rule that governs venue in transitory actions, states that if none of the parties reside in the state, venue is proper in any county designated by the plaintiff. CPLR 510 states that the court, upon motion, may change the place of trial of an action where: (1) the county designated for that purpose is not a proper county; or (2) there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in the proper county; or (3) the convenience of material witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change.
It is undisputed that none of the parties resides in New York. The action was filed in New York County. Plaintiff argues that venue is proper because the plaintiff and the vessel had contact with New York County prior to the accident, and the vessel's defective condition was present before it set sail on the day of the accident. While these contacts are not sizable, CPLR 503(a) has no minimum contacts requirements for actions with non-resident parties.
Defendant contends that plaintiff's selection of New York County is improper, and venue should be changed to Suffolk County as permitted by CPLR 510. Defendant argues that Suffolk County, not New York County, is the proper venue because the accident occurred near Fire Island, making Suffolk County the "place of incident." However, neither the plaintiff nor the vessel made contact with Fire Island or any other part of Suffolk County, and the accident occurred in international waters.
Consequently, New York County is proper under CPLR 503(a). Defendant presents no reason to believe an impartial trial cannot be had there, and there is no evidence that convenience or justice would be better served in Suffolk County. Thus, there are no grounds for granting defendant's change of venue motion.
Defendant, alternatively, asks that the action against it be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens. CPLR 327(a), which codifies the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens, provides that a court may stay or dismiss an action if it finds that in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum.
The New York Court of Appeals articulated the standard for forum non conveniens in Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi:
The burden rests upon the defendant challenging the forum to demonstrate relevant private or public interest factors which militate against accepting the litigation, and the court, after considering and balancing the various competing factors, must determine in the exercise of its sound discretion whether to retain jurisdiction or not. Among the factors to be considered are the burden on the New York courts, the potential hardship to the defendant, and the unavailability of an alternative forum in which plaintiff may bring suit. The court may also consider that both parties to the action are nonresidents and that the transaction occurred primarily in a foreign jurisdiction. No one factor is controlling.
62 N.Y.2d 474, 479 (citations...
To continue reading
Request your trial