Grant of Motion to Dismiss Based on Forum Non Conveniens Upheld
Plaintiff, a British citizen, was injured in England when he was a passenger on an all-terrain vehicle manufactured by a New York company, RII. The Fourth Department affirmed the grant of RII’s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 327 (forum non conveniens) and to have the proceeding moved to England. Plaintiffs’ objections that contingency-fee arrangements are not allowed in England and loss of consortium damages are not recognized in England did not warrant denial of the motion. The Fourth Department wrote:
…[T]he court properly determined that “the action, although jurisdictionally sound, would be better adjudicated elsewhere” …. Plaintiffs are both British citizens residing in Scotland. The accident occurred in England, and other witnesses, including the driver of the ATV, are located there. As the trial court in the federal action between the same parties noted, “highly material evidence, such as the eyewitness testimony, accident investigation documents and witnesses, the scene of the accident, and the vehicle itself, which will not be readily within plaintiffs’ control in this court, would be more accessible to both sides in a British forum” …. Moreover, RII is amenable to service of process in Scotland or England, and it does not take issue with the conditions imposed by the court concerning the waiver of defenses based on jurisdiction and the statute of limitations. Emslie v Recreative Industries, Inc., CA 12-01246, 139, 4th Dept, 4-26-13