From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schneider v. Safety Harbor Spa, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 10, 1977
56 A.D.2d 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Opinion

March 10, 1977


Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on July 13, 1976, denying defendants' application to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. We find "the interest of justice and fairness" (see Silver v Great Amer. Ins. Co., 29 N.Y.2d 356), not further explicated by Special Term, lies in the plaintiff being now 73 years old and in ill health, her fact witness being 74 years old and resident in New York, her expert witness residing in nearby New Jersey, that the plaintiff has no expert witness in Florida and that the defendant corporation, of which the defendant Gubner is president and medical director, regularly solicits customers in New York. In view of these considerations, the Special Term's denial was not an abuse of discretion.

Concur — Stevens, P.J., Murphy, Birns, Silverman and Lynch, JJ.


Summaries of

Schneider v. Safety Harbor Spa, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 10, 1977
56 A.D.2d 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)
Case details for

Schneider v. Safety Harbor Spa, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SADIE SCHNEIDER, Respondent, v. SAFETY HARBOR SPA, INC., et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Mar 10, 1977

Citations

56 A.D.2d 762 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Citing Cases

Temple v. Temple

Here, defendants have failed to show that they would be inconvenienced by New York litigation any more than…

Krentsel v. Loews Miami Beach Hotel Op. Co.

Defendant's assertion that this case should be moved to Florida because Plaintiff's residency is the only…