Koskar v. Ford Motor Co.

• Citation: 923 N.Y.S.2d 901,2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 04636,84 A.D.3d 1317
• Parties: Selim KOSKAR, et al., respondents,v.FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., defendants,Sail Trans Corp., appellant.
• Decision Date: 31 May 2011
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

84 A.D.3d 1317
923 N.Y.S.2d 901
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 04636

Selim KOSKAR, et al., respondents,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al., defendants,Sail Trans Corp., appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

May 31, 2011.

Russo, Keane & Toner, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Michael J. Sweeney and Thomas F. Keane of counsel), for appellant.Arniotes & Calakos, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (George G. Coffinas and Demetra Arniotes Calakos of counsel), for respondent Selim Koskar.Kubick & Associates, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Richard Kubick of counsel), for respondent Yoa S. Murray.

[84 A.D.3d 1317] In a consolidated action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant Sail Trans Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated December 18, 2009, as denied that branch of its motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against it on the ground of forum non conveniens pursuant to CPLR 327(a).

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

[923 N.Y.S.2d 902]

The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to stay or dismiss an action when, although it may have jurisdiction [84 A.D.3d 1318] over a claim, the court determines that “in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum” (CPLR 327[a] ). The defendant bears the burden on 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” ( Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 479, 478 N.Y.S.2d 597, 467 N.E.2d 245, cert. denied 469 U.S. 1108, 105 S.Ct. 783, 83 L.Ed.2d 778). “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” ( Tiger Sourcing Ltd. v. GMAC Commercial Fin. Corporation–Can., 66 A.D.3d 1002, 1003, 887 N.Y.S.2d 652; see Prestige Brands, Inc. v. Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 65 A.D.3d 1028, 885 N.Y.S.2d 501; Turay v. Beam Bros. Trucking, Inc., 61 A.D.3d 964, 966, 878 N.Y.S.2d 391). No one factor is dispositive ( see Turay v. Beam Bros. Trucking, Inc., 61 A.D.3d at 966, 878 N.Y.S.2d 391; Brinson v. Chrysler Fin., 43 A.D.3d 846, 848, 842 N.Y.S.2d 48). The Supreme Court's determination should not...