Prestige Brands, Inc. v. Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 65 A.D.3d 1028 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
Prestige Brands, Inc. v. Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 65 A.D.3d 1028 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re Miller
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
On a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveni ens, the burden is on the defendant challenging the forum to demonstrate that considerations relevant to private or public interest militate against accepting or retaining the litigation (see Prestige Brands, Inc. v Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 65 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2009]; Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d 735, 736 [2007]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jackam v. Nature's Bounty, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
The court’s determination will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court has failed to properly consider all the relevant factors” (Prestige Brands, Inc. v Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 65 AD3d 1028,1028-1029 [2009] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]; Harleysville Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Salzstein v. Salzstein
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
On a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens, the burden is on a defendant challenging the forum to demonstrate relevant private or public interest factors which militate against accepting the litigation (see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d at 479 ; Prestige Brands, Inc. v Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 65 AD3d 1028, 1029 [2009]; Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d 735, 736 [2007]).
cited Cited "see" Koskar v. Ford Motor Co.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Corporation-Can., 66 AD3d 1002, 1003 [2009]; see Prestige Brands, Inc. v Hogan & Hartson, LLP, 65 AD3d 1028 [2009]; Turay v Beam Bros.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Prestige Brands, Inc.
v.
Hogan & Hartson, LLP
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 8, 2009.
65 A.D.3d 1028
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered January 14, 2009, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

“The common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens, also articulated in CPLR 327 (a), permits a court to stay or dismiss [an] action[ ] where it is determined that the action, although jurisdictionally sound, would be better adjudicated elsewhere” (Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478-479 [1984], cert denied 469 US 1108 [1985]). In a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens, the burden is on a defendant challenging the forum to demonstrate relevant private[*1029] or public interest factors which militate against accepting the litigation here (see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d at 479; Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d 735, 736 [2007]). The court’s determination will not be disturbed on appeal unless the court has failed to properly consider all the relevant factors (see Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d at 479; Cheggour v R’Kiki, 293 AD2d 507, 508 [2002]). Among the factors the court must weigh are “the residency of the parties, the potential hardship to proposed witnesses, the availability of an alternative forum, the situs of the underlying action, and the burden which will be imposed upon the New York courts, with no one single factor controlling” (Wentzel v Allen Mach., 277 AD2d 446, 447 [2000]; see Economos v Zizikas, 18 AD3d 392, 394 [2005]; Shin-Etsu Chem. Co., Ltd. v ICICI Bank Ltd., 9 AD3d 171, 175 [2004]). Here, the Supreme Court considered the relevant factors involved. Under the circumstances of this case, the court’s determination should not be disturbed (see Smolik v Turner Constr. Co., 48 AD3d 452, 453-454 [2008]; Rosenberg v Stikeman Elliott, LLP, 44 AD3d 840, 841 [2007]; Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d at 736). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Florio and Lott, JJ., concur.