You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, A NEW YORK RESIDENT AND A SHAREHOLDER IN DEFENDANT LONDON CORPORATION,...
,

PLAINTIFF, A NEW YORK RESIDENT AND A SHAREHOLDER IN DEFENDANT LONDON CORPORATION, ALLEGED DEFENDANT WRONGFULLY FAILED TO PAY DIVIDENDS; THE LONDON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant’s motion to dismiss on “forum non conveniens” grounds should have been granted. Plaintiff is a New York resident and the defendant is a London corporation (Anderson). Plaintiff, a shareholder of Anderson, alleged Anderson failed to pay dividends to shareholders:

The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to dismiss an action when it finds that “in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum” (CPLR 327[a]). In reviewing the motion court’s exercise of discretion, this Court, however, may exercise such discretion independently … . The factors to be considered on a forum non conveniens motion include: “the burden on the New York courts, the potential hardship to the defendant, and the unavailability of an alternative forum in which plaintiff may bring suit. The court may also consider that both parties to the action are nonresidents and that the transaction out of which the cause of action arose occurred primarily in a foreign jurisdiction. No one factor is controlling” … . New York courts “need not entertain causes of action lacking a substantial nexus with New York” … .

… Although plaintiff is a resident of New York, Anderson, its documents, and the witnesses are all located in the United Kingdom. The dispute involves an accounting of a British private company and will likely involve the application of British law to determine what duty, if any, is owed to plaintiff. Furthermore, the United Kingdom has a stronger interest than New York in the actions, duties, and governance of its companies … . Hayes v Anderson & Sheppard Ltd., 2024 NY Slip Op 01344, First Dept 3-14-24

Practice Point: Here plaintiff, a New York resident and a shareholder in defendant London corporation, alleged defendant wrongfully failed to pay dividends. The London defendant’s motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds should have been granted, criteria explained.

 

You might also like
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, AFTER A COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE, ISSUED A PRECLUSION ORDER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MOTION PENDING (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING BEAM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT OTHERWISE PROTECTED FROM FALLING OBJECTS; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
IN A RARE REVERSAL OF A BENCH TRIAL ON EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS, THE 1ST DEPT DETERMINED FOUR OUT-OF-COURT STATEMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY THE VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL-OFFENSE CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER THE “EXCITED UTTERANCE” OR “PROMPT OUTCRY” THEORIES; THE COURT NOTED THAT ONLY THE FACT OF THE COMPLAINT, NOT THE ACCOMPANYING DETAILS, ARE ADMISSIBLE AS A “PROMPT OUTCRY” (FIRST DEPT). ​
HERE THE MOTION TO RENEW, BASED UPON A CHANGE IN OR CLARIFICATION OF THE LAW, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE THE APPELLATE RULING ON THE PRIOR ORDER (FIRST DEPT).
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS SPECIFICALLY TARGETED FOR A HOME INVASION DID NOT PRECLUDE A FINDING THAT INADEQUATE BUILDING SECURITY WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE (FIRST DEPT).
THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT LIABILITY ON A PIERCING-THE-CORPORATE-VEIL THEORY AND THE HOPE THAT DISCOVERY WOULD REVEAL SOMETHING WAS NOT A BASIS FOR DENIAL OF THE MOTION TO DISMISS (FIRST DEPT).
Medical Malpractice—Expert Opinion Can Be Based Entirely on Experience.
MOTION IN LIMINE CANNOT BE USED TO DETERMINE AN ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT, THE MOTION WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST 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

THE AMENDED LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT SUPERSEDED THE PRIOR ORAL SIDE... THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IN CPLR 510(3) WERE NOT...