Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009

Prestige Brands, Inc. v. Hogan & Hartson, LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided September 8, 2009

65 A.D.3d 1028; 885 N.Y.S.2d 501

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Salzstein v. Salzstein (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Koskar v. Ford Motor Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Jackam v. Nature's Bounty, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Tiger Sourcing (HK) Ltd. v. GMAC Commercial Finance Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
May v. US HIFU, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
May v. US HIFU, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Patriot Exploration, LLC v. Thompson & Knight LLP (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
In re Miller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered January 14, 2009, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“The common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens, also articulated in CPLR 327 (a), permits a court to stay or dismiss [an] action[ ] where it is determined that the action, although jurisdictionally sound, would be better adjudicated elsewhere” (Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]). In a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens, the burden is on a defendant challenging the forum to demonstrate relevant private *1029or public interest factors which militate against accepting the litigation here (see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d at 479; Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d 735, 736 [2007]). The court’s determination will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court has failed to properly consider all the relevant factors (see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d at 479; Cheggour v R’Kiki, 293 AD2d 507, 508 [2002]). Among the factors the court must weigh are “the residency of the parties, the potential hardship to proposed witnesses, the availability of an alternative forum, the situs of the underlying action, and the burden which will be imposed upon the New York courts, with no one single factor controlling” (Wentzel v Allen Mach., 277 AD2d 446, 447 [2000]; see Economos v Zizikas, 18 AD3d 392, 394 [2005]; Shin-Etsu Chem. Co., Ltd. v ICICI Bank Ltd., 9 AD3d 171, 175 [2004]). Here, the Supreme Court considered the relevant factors involved. Under the circumstances of this case, the court’s determination should not be disturbed (see Smolik v Turner Constr. Co., 48 AD3d 452, 453-454 [2008]; Rosenberg v Stikeman Elliott, LLP, 44 AD3d 840, 841 [2007]; Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d at 736). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Lott, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.