§Why CasetextPricing

Thomas Boyle, et al., Appellants,v.Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., Respondent.

Brief

11 Cited authorities

  1. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno

    454 U.S. 235 (1981)   Cited 4,737 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that potential change in law cannot, by itself, fend off dismissal under forum non conveniens absent showing that new law is "clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory"

  2. Islamic Republic v. Pahlavi

    62 N.Y.2d 474 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 707 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Diverging from federal doctrine on whether alternative forum must be available to consider forum non conveniens claims

  3. Silver v. Great Amer. Ins. Co.

    29 N.Y.2d 356 (N.Y. 1972)   Cited 292 times
    In Silver v. Great American Insurance Co., 29 N.Y.2d 356, 328 N.Y.S.2d 398, 278 N.E.2d 619 (1972), the New York Court of Appeals relaxed its previous strict requirement prohibiting the doctrine of forum non conveniens from being invoked if one of the parties was a resident of that state.

  4. Banco Ambrosiano v. Artoc Bank

    62 N.Y.2d 65 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 169 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding sufficient contacts to support personal jurisdiction based on foreign defendant's consent to be paid in United States dollars put into a New York account and on prior routine conduct of exchange deals

  5. Boyle v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.

    110 A.D.3d 938 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 12 times

    2013-10-23 Thomas BOYLE, et al., appellants, v. STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS WORLDWIDE, INC., respondent. Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Vano I. Haroutunian and Michael H. Du Boff of counsel), for appellants. Polsinelli Shughart P.C., New York, N.Y. (Jason A. Nagi, Troy B. Froderman, pro hac vice, and Megan H. Tracy, pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondent. MARK C. DILLON Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Vano I. Haroutunian and Michael H. Du Boff of counsel),

  6. Varkonyi v. Varig

    22 N.Y.2d 333 (N.Y. 1968)   Cited 79 times
    In Varkonyi v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Airea Grandense (Varig) (1968), 22 N.Y.2d 333, 239 N.E.2d 542, 292 N.Y.S.2d 670, the Court of Appeals of New York ordered reconsideration of an order dismissing on the ground of forum non conveniens, but the court did so in the light of "special and unusual circumstances" (22 N.Y.2d 333, 338, 239 N.E.2d 542, 544, 292 N.Y.S.2d 670, 674).

  7. Koskar v. Ford Motor Co.

    84 A.D.3d 1317 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 11 times
    Applying a balancing test to assess a forum non conveniens motion

  8. Tiger Sourcing (HK) Ltd. v. GMAC Commercial Finance Corp.

    66 A.D.3d 1002 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 9 times

    No. 2009-02151. October 27, 2009. In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered January 16, 2009, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 327 (a). Rattet, Pasternak, Gordon Oliver, LLP, Harrison, N.Y. (Richard J. Rubin of counsel), for appellant. Otterbourg, Steindler, Houston Rosen, P.C

  9. Ramírez de Arellano v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.

    448 F. Supp. 2d 520 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)   Cited 8 times
    In Ramirez de Arellano v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., the plaintiffs, like Plaintiff here, alleged that the defendant was vicariously liable for the theft of the plaintiffs' belongings at a hotel in Spain due to the hotel's negligence.

  10. H J Blits, Inc. v. Blits

    65 N.Y.2d 1014 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 12 times

    Decided September 12, 1985 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, David Edwards, Jr., J. Arnold Y. Kapoloff for appellants. Wilbur G. Silverman for respondents. On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order reversed, with costs, and case remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for full reconsideration of defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. Whether an action should be