From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chawafaty v. Chase Manhattan Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 13, 2001
288 A.D.2d 58 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Summary

dismissing for forum non conveniens because "[t]his action lacks a substantial connection to New York"

Summary of this case from Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Blavatnik

Opinion

November 13, 2001.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered August 7, 2000, which conditionally granted defendant's motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens, and order, same court and Justice, entered April 20, 2001, which upon grant of renewal, adhered to the prior order, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

David A. Barrett, for plaintiffs-appellants.

John M. Callagy, for defendant-respondent.

Before: Rosenberger, J.P., Tom, Rubin, Buckley, Marlow, JJ.


The court properly balanced the appropriate factors (see, Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, cert denied 469 U.S. 1108) and properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens, while imposing reasonable conditions designed to protect plaintiffs' interests. This action lacks a substantial connection to New York and would be burdensome to its courts. This case primarily concerns transactions in an account that plaintiffs, citizens and residents of Egypt, opened in defendant's branch located in Jersey, a Channel Island. While some of the transactions at issue were processed in New York for reasons relating to plaintiffs' convenience, these were clearly incidental and do not create a significant nexus. Under these circumstances, the fact that defendant maintains its headquarters in New York does not establish that New York is an appropriate forum (see, Neuter, Ltd. v. Citibank, N.A., 239 A.D.2d 213; see also, Trinity Inv. Trust L.L.C. v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co., 275 A.D.2d 661). We note that plaintiffs would not be inconvenienced by a trial in Jersey, that most of the relevant witnesses and documents are located there, and that the courts of Jersey provide a suitable forum. We have considered and rejected plaintiffs' remaining claims.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

Chawafaty v. Chase Manhattan Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 13, 2001
288 A.D.2d 58 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

dismissing for forum non conveniens because "[t]his action lacks a substantial connection to New York"

Summary of this case from Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Blavatnik
Case details for

Chawafaty v. Chase Manhattan Bank

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES CHAWAFATY, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE CHASE MANHATTAN…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 13, 2001

Citations

288 A.D.2d 58 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
733 N.Y.S.2d 12

Citing Cases

Globalvest Mgt. Co. L.P. v. Citibank, N.A.

Where, as here, the action is almost entirely concerned with the events, institution and law of a foreign…

Sunoco v. Home Insurance Co.

Plaintiffs sought to join the Federal action as parties plaintiff, but their motion was denied, and defendant…