HON. STEPHEN A. BUCARIA Justice

Transcription

1 SHORT FORM ORDER Present: SUPREME COURT - STATE OF NEW YORK HON. STEPHEN A. BUCARIA Justice KEVIN O TOOLE and JOANNE O TOOLE, TRIAL/IAS, PART 18 NASSAU COUNTY -against- Plaintiffs, INDEX No /99 MOTION DATE: May 8,200O.Motion Sequence # 00 1,002 & 003 KENNY ROGERS and NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT DATA, INC., Defendants. The following papers read on this motion: Notice of Motion... Cross-Motion... Affirmation in Opposition & Reply..... Affirmation in Further Support..... Memorandum of Law... X X XX X This motion, by National Entertainment Data Inc. (hereinafter NED ), for an order a) pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)@) dismissing the complaint and cross-claim for lack of personal jurisdiction over the moving defendant or b) dismissing the complaint and crossclaim pursuant to CPLR 327(a) because this state is an inconvenient forum; and for other and further relief that this Court deems just and proper; and a motion (hereinafter cross-motion ) by defendant Kenny Rogers, for an order pursuant to CPLR $327, dismissing the action in whole, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable; and a second cross-motion, by plaintiff, for an order granting plaintiff partial summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 32 12, et seq., on the issue of liability and setting this matter down for an immediate trial as to damages, together with such other and further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper under the premises considered, are &I determined as hereinafter set forth. 1

2 Index no FACTS Plaintiff is a New York resident was attending a conference in Dallas, Texas, that his employer, Deloitte & Touche, was holding for the various partners of his firm from around the country. Kenny Rogers was hired by co-defendant NED to perform a concert for all employees in attendance. The allegation is that the plaintiff was injured as a result of Kenny Rogers negligently throwing a plastic frisbee into the crowd accidentally hitting a chandelier near the table at which the plaintiff was sitting and breaking off some of the glass from the fixture which fell on the plaintiff and injured him. MOVANT S CONTENTIONS Mr. Rogers contends that this cause of action should be dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens. His attorneys argue that this case would be a burden on the court, that the witnesses are located in alternative jurisdictions, that the medical records and other evidence are located in Texas, that the present jurisdiction is burdensome to Mr. Rogers, and that the accident did not occur in the present jurisdiction. NED contends that this case should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. They claim that they have no contact with the State of New York for this case or any other matter and could therefore not have reasonably anticipated being subject to suit in New York. They argue that none of the activities alleged in the complaint meet the requirement of establishing a constitutionally adequate connection between the defendant, the state, and the action. PLAINTIFF S CONTENTIONS The plaintiffs argue that this jurisdiction is not an inconvenient forum. Kenny Rogers is an international recording artist, movie star, and television performer who often works in New York and has frequent business dealings here. He frequently performs concerts in the Metropolitan area and is, in fact, having one this summer.in Nassau County. Six of the plaintiffs witnesses are located in either New York or Connecticut. They also contend that the treating physician is in this state along with most of the relevant medical records. They further allege that Mr. Rogers may have a home in New York. The plaintiffs also move for summary judgment regarding the negligence of Mr. Rogers. They allege that the conduct of Mr. Rogers falls far below any permissible standard of care and should be granted summary judgment. DECISION The rule in motions for summary judgment has been succinctly re-stated by the Appellate Division, Second Dept., in (Stewart Title Insurance ComDanv. Inc. v Eauitable Land Services, Inc., 207 AD2d 880,616 NYS2d 650,65 1, 1994): It is well established that a party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of any material issues of fact (WinePrad v New

3 Index no /99 York Univ. Med. Center, 64 NY2d 85 1,853,487 NYS2d 3 16,476 NE2d 642; Zuckerman v Citv of New York, 49 NY2d 557,562,427 NYS2d 595,404 NE2d 718). Of course, summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of a triable issue (State Bank of Albany v McAuliffe, 97 AD2d 607,467 NYS2d 944), but once a prima facie showing has been made, the burden shifts to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to establish material issues of fact which require a trial of the action (Alvarez v ProsDect Hosa, 68 NY2d 320,324,508 NYS2d 923,501 NE2d 572; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra, 49 NY2d at 562, 427 NYS2d 595,404 NE2d 7 18). In applying the above mentioned principles of law to the facts of the case at bar, the court has considered the depositions of the parties and pertinent pleadings and documents which form the record before this court. The plaintiffs allege that Kenny Rogers acted negligently by taking the unsolicited gamble of throwing a plastic frisbee into a large crowd of people. They contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because the alleged negligent conduct of Mr. Rogers falls far below any permissible standard of care. Summary judgment in negligence cases should be granted only in rare instanties, even if there is no dispute as to what occurred. (Repnal Realty Corp. v McBride Transp. Inc., 25 AD2d 703,268 NYS2d 103,1966). While negligence actions are normally not readily disposed of by summary judgment, questions as to whether any acts proximately caused.injury may be decided by the court as a matter of law where the cause of the accident is undisputed (Carrillo v Kreckel, 43 AD2d 499, 352 NYS2d 730, 1974). In the present case, there is a dispute as to whether the chandelier was defective. The defendant wishes to have an opportunity to inspect the chandelier to verify the manner in which the accident occurred and to determine whether it is defective in any manner. Because of this, summary judgment would be inappropriate for this matter. The doctrine of forum non conveniens was devised to enable courts to protect the judicial system from being inundated by innumerable actions which have no real nexus in New York. (RePal K&wear Co., Inc. v M. Hoffman & Co. Inc., 96 Misc2d 605,409 NYS2d 483, 1978). Application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is a matter of discretion to be exercised by the tial court and the Appellate Division (Islamic R&ublic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474,478 NYS2d 597,467 NE2d 245). In a motion to dismiss on ground of forum non conveniens, the burden is on the moving party to establish clearly that another jurisdiction is the more appropriate forum (Roman v Sunshine Ranchettes, Inc., 98 AD2d 744,469 NYS2d 449,1983). In Islamic ReDublic, the Court of Appeals considered various competing factors in deciding whether or not forum non conveniens should be applied (62 NY2d 474,478 NYS2d 3

4 Index no /99 597,467 NE2d 245, 1984). These factors were the burden on the New York Courts, the potential hardship to the defendant, the availability of an alternative forum in which the plaintiff can bring suit, whether both parties were non-residents, and whether the transaction to which the cause of action arose from occurred in a foreign jurisdiction. Id. In the present case, since Kenny Rogers has frequent business dealings in this State, and in fact, even has a concert scheduled in Nassau County this summer, he would not suffer hardship should the case be tried in New York. Because the majority of the witnesses to this accident were from various cities across the country, the defendant would not be at a disadvantage should this action be tried in this jurisdiction as opposed to any other. The minimal evidence items are insufficient to present a barrier to litigation in New York. In addition to this the plaintiff has six witnesses from the Metropolitan area who are willing to testify in New York. Even though there is an alternative forum available, New York residents are presumptively entitled to utilize t he New York judicial system for dispute resolution (Broida v Bancroft, 103 AD2d 88, 478 NYS2d 333, 1984). Unless it plainly appears that New York is an inconvenient forum and that another forum is available which will best serve the ends ofjustice and convenience ofparties, the resident plaintiff should not be deprived ofnew York as their chosen forum. (Sullivan v J.V. McNicholas Transfer Co., 93 AD2d 527,462 NYD2d 934,1983). The plaintiff should not be deprived of New York as his chosen forum even though another forum is available. (Estate of Helen Katz v Lozaroff, 236 AD2d 257, 653 NYS2d 348, lst Dept., 1997). Although the accident occurred in Texas, the Second Department has held that even though an accident occurred in a foreign state, New York courts can still have jurisdiction. (see, O Connor v Bonanza Inter.. Inc., 129 AD2d 569,5 14 NYS2d 67,1987). In O Connor, the defendant failed to establish that it was entitled to dismissal on the grounds of forum non conveniens, even though injuries occurred in South Carolina and some of the witnesses to the occurrence presumably could be found in South Carolina while most of the medical treatment was in New York. Id. For these reasons, defendant Roger s motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is denied. CPLR302(a) provides: Defendants have failed to meet the heavy burden of showing that plaintiffs selection of New York as a forum should be disturbed (see, Yoshida Print Co.. Ltd. v Aiba, 213 AD2d 275,624 NYS2d 128). Defendants did not offer any evidence to demonstrate that any material witnesses would be burdened by proceedings in New York. Acts which are the basis of jurisdiction. As to a cause of action arising from any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over any non-domiciliary, or 4

5 Index no /99 his executor or administrator, who in person or through an agent: 1. transacts any business within the state or contacts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state; or 2. commits a tortious act within the state, except as to a cause of action for defamation of character arising from the act; or 3. commits a tortious act without the state causing injury to person or property within the state, except as to a cause of action for defamation of 1, character arising from the act, if he (i) regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in the state, or (ii) expects or should reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state and derives substantial revenue from interstate or international commerce; or 4. owns, uses or possesses any real property situated within the state. In this case, Paul Akers, the president of NED, asserts in his affidavit that his company does not transact or receive any revenues from conducting business in New York State. Even though the plaintiffs allege in their complaint that NED derives substantial revenue from the transaction of business in New York, they fail to support this contention with any factual proof that the defendants specifically conduct business in New York. Although the alleged tortious act occurred without the state, it did not cause injury to a person within the state. The situs of the injury is the location of the original event which caused the injury, not the location where the resultant damages are subsequently felt by the plaintiff. (see, Carte v Parkoff, 152 AD2d 615, 543 NYS2d 718 (2nd Dept., 1989); Hermann v Sharon Hosn., 1.35 AD2d 682,683). Since the location of the original event that caused the injury is Texas, the alleged tortious act did not cause injury to a person within the state. There is no proof, nor has it been alleged, that NED owns, uses, or possesses real property situated in New York. Nor is it alleged that DeLoitte and Touche and NED entered into a contract in New York State. For these reasons, the defendant s motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR is granted for lack of personal jurisdiction. 5

6 Index no /99 Accordingly, the motion to dismiss.in favor of defendant Kenny Rogers pursuant to CPLR 3211 on the grounds of The forum motion non conveniens to dismiss is odenied. n behalf of defendant NED pursuant to CPLR 3211 on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction is granted. The motion for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 by plaintiffs Kevin and Joanne O Toole on the issue of liability is denied without prejudice. The making of this motion has triggered assignment pursuant to Part 202 of the Uniform Rules for New York State Trial Court. The Preliminary Conference mandated by Section shall be held on the lower level of the courthouse in the part designated for this purpose on the 31 day of July 2000 at 9:30 A.M. So Ordered. Dated 4UM ~