Opinion
June 19, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order entered April 13, 1988, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order entered June 16, 1988, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered June 16, 1988, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
The plaintiff's decedent, who died of causes unrelated to the accident herein, was seriously injured when a table saw which he was operating jammed and kicked back, causing his fingers to be pulled toward the path of the blade. The accident occurred at his place of employment in Stamford, Connecticut. At the time of the accident the plaintiff was a resident of New York. The defendants, who are the manufacturers of the table saw, are foreign corporations which admittedly do business in New York.
The defendants moved for dismissal of the action on the ground that the proper forum for the action is Connecticut. The motion was denied and upon reargument that determination was adhered to. This appeal ensued.
On appeal, the defendants note that the accident occurred in Connecticut and "presumably" witnesses on the issues of liability and damages will be from Connecticut. They also argue that the fact that Connecticut law may be applicable necessitates dismissal of the action. They note that the plaintiff's residence was the only connection with New York.
While the residence of a party is not a determinative factor on a forum non conveniens motion, it is an important one (Temple v Temple, 97 A.D.2d 757; Laurenzano v. Goldman, 96 A.D.2d 852), and a plaintiff's choice of forum will not be disturbed unless the balance of convenience is strongly in favor of the defendants (Temple v. Temple, supra; Bader Bader v. Ford, 66 A.D.2d 642). In the instant case the plaintiff's residence in New York provides a substantial nexus to this State, and the record does not show that the defendants will be inconvenienced or prejudiced in any way if the action is maintained in New York. They have failed to identify any nonparty witness who resides in Connecticut and would be inconvenienced by a trial in New York (see, O'Connor v Bonanza Intl., 129 A.D.2d 569). The defendants' reliance on choice of law also lacks merit. While the choice of law is also an important factor to be considered on an issue of forum non conveniens (see, Hormel Intl. Corp. v. Andersen Co., 55 A.D.2d 905), it is not a determinative factor, and this court will "not be overly eager to dismiss an action on that ground when other factors militate against dismissal" (Temple v. Temple, 97 A.D.2d 757, 758, supra).
Moreover, it is clear that the defendants are guilty of laches. Having participated in the action for such an extended period of time, to wit, approximately 15 months before moving to dismiss, the defendants cannot claim that New York is an inconvenient forum (see, Corines v. Dobson, 135 A.D.2d 390; see generally, Siegel, N Y Prac § 28). Brown, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.