You are here: / / THERE WAS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN NEW YORK AND PENNSYLVANIA LAW IN THIS PERSONAL...
,

THERE WAS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN NEW YORK AND PENNSYLVANIA LAW IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY CASE, THEREFORE NEW YORK LAW APPLIES AND THERE IS NO NEED FOR A CHOICE OF LAW ANALYSIS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined New York applies in this action stemming from an accident in Pennsylvania:

New York law controls the resolution of its motion and this appeal. “[B]ecause New York is the forum state, i.e., the action was commenced here, New York’s choice-of-law principles govern the outcome of this matter’ ”  … . “The first step in any case presenting a potential choice of law issue is to determine whether there is an actual conflict between the laws of the jurisdictions involved” … . Here, defendant failed to establish the existence of any conflict between New York and Pennsylvania law with respect to the issues raised in the motion, and therefore we need not engage in any choice of law analysis … . Farnham v MIC Wholesale Ltd, 2019 NY Slip Op 07178, Fourth Dept 10-4-19

 

You might also like
FINE BELOW THE MINIMUM STATUTORY AMOUNT WAS ILLEGAL AND WAS THEREFORE VACATED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION.
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT WERE HUNTING TURKEY WHEN DEFENDANT SHOT PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NOTWITHSTANDING POSSIBLE COMPARATIVE-NEGLIGENCE ISSUES (FOURTH DEPT).
Defendant Failed to Meet Its Burden on Its Summary Judgment Motion—Not Enough to Point to Deficiencies in Plaintiff’s Proof
Reversible Error to Deny For Cause Challenge to Biased Juror/Defendant’s Counsel Ineffective
PLAINTIFF STAFFING AGENCY WAS NOT ENTITLED, BASED UPON A BALANCING OF THE EQUITIES, TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENFORCING A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHICH OSTENSIBLY PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM CONTINUING TO WORK AT THE HOSPITAL WHERE PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED HIM AFTER DEFENDANT TERMINATED HIS CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).
Under the Unambiguous Terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Plaintiff, a Retiree Who Was No Longer a Union Member, Was Not Subject to the Grievance-Filing Requirement and Could Sue Directly
Attorney-in-Fact Used His Power to Create a Gift (by Deed) to Himself and/or Third Parties—Deed Declared Null and Void
MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION BASED UPON RECANTING TESTIMONY PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING, WEAKNESS OF RECANTING TESTIMONY EMPHASIZED (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT WERE NOT CONFINED TO THE REMEDIES MENTIONED... THE PROHIBITION OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY DID NOT PRECLUDE THE PROSECUTION BASED UPON...