Opinion
No. 88 SSM 4.
Decided February 17, 2011.
APPEAL, by permission of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered July 27, 2010. The Appellate Division affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), which had denied a motion by defendant for dismissal of the action on the ground that New York is an inconvenient forum. The following question was certified by the Appellate Division: "Was the order of Supreme Court, as affirmed by the order of this Court, properly made?"
Patriot Exploration, LLC v Thompson Knight LLP, 75 AD3d 482, reversed.
Thompson Knight LLP, New York City ( E. Michael Sheehan of counsel), for appellant.
Bernkopf Goodman, LLP (Peter B. McGlynn, of the Massachusetts bar, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for respondents.
Chief Judge LIPPMAN and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur in memorandum.
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed with costs, and defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint granted on the conditions that defendant (1) consent to deeming the filing date of the Texas action to be as of October 27, 2008, the date respondents filed this action in New York, and (2) waive any statute of limitations defense in the Texas action. The certified question should be answered in the negative.
It is apparent from the record that defendant's forum non conveniens motion was denied on the basis of Supreme Court's mistaken understanding that plaintiffs would face a statute of limitations barrier to suit in an alternative forum. In fact, plaintiffs failed to show that any such barrier exists, and in any event, the issue can be dealt with by the imposition of conditions to which defendant has consented.
The Appellate Division majority abused its discretion in finding that traditional forum non conveniens factors warranted denial of the motion ( Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478). This case involves the alleged malpractice by Texas lawyers representing Alaskan clients, whose principal places of business are in Connecticut, in a transaction with Texas companies that involves land in Texas. Further, the documentary evidence is located in defendant's Texas office, as are the attorneys who allegedly committed the malpractice and most of the potential witnesses.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.