Legal Opinion

Hoogenboom v. Gilmore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 27, 2000PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order *896unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied those parts of defendants’ motions and cross motions to dismiss the complaints upon the ground of forum non conveniens. That doctrine “should be applied only when it plainly appears that New York is an inconvenient forum and that the action has no nexus to this State” (Shepherd Showcase v Pekala, 138 AD2d 960, 961; see, Singh v Swan, 225 AD2d 1057, 1058). Defendants failed to establish that New York is an inconvenient forum and that the actions have no nexus to this State. The motor vehicle accident occurred in…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Neumeier v. KuehnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1972
  2. Tooker v. LopezNew York Court of Appeals · 1969
  3. LaForge v. NormandinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
  4. Shepherd Showcase, Inc. v. PekalaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
  5. Singh v. SwanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Cunningham v. WilliamsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
  2. Cabrera v. Allstate InsuranceAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API