Sweeney v. Hertz Corp., 250 A.D.2d 385 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Sweeney v. Hertz Corp., 250 A.D.2d 385 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Metropolitan Partners Fund IIIA, LP v. GemCap Lending I, LLC
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
The plaintiff's residence is generally the most significant factor in a forum non conveniens analysis ( Sweeney v Hertz Corp. , 250 AD2d 385, 386 [1st Dept 1998]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Metropolitan Partners Fund IIIA, LP v. GemCap Lending I, LLC
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
The plaintiff's residence is generally the most significant factor in a forum non conveniens analysis ( Sweeney v Hertz Corp. , 250 AD2d 385, 386 [1st Dept 1998]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bacon v. Nygard
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
While also not dispositive, this is generally "the most significant factor in the equation" ( Sweeney v Hertz Corp. , 250 AD2d 385, 386 [1st Dept 1998] [internal quotation marks omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hudson Insurance v. Oppenheim
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
Defendant fails to carry his “heavy” burden of challenging plaintiffs’ selection of forum (see Bank Hapoalim [Switzerland] Ltd. v Banca Intesa S.p.A., 26 AD3d 286, 287 [2006]; Sweeney v Hertz Corp., 250 AD2d 385, 386 [1998] [plaintiff’s choice of forum should not be disturbed absent a balancing of factors “strongly favoring” defendant]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Chestnut Ridge Air, Ltd. v. 1260269 Ontario Inc.
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2006 · confidence medium
(Bank Hapoalim [Switzerland] Ltd. v Banca Intesa S.p.A., 26 AD3d 286 [1st Dept 2006].) Indeed, plaintiff’s New York residence should generally be “the most significant factor in the equation.” (Sweeney v Hertz Corp., 250 AD2d 385, 385 [1st Dept 1998].) Therefore, a New York plaintiff will not be deprived of its home forum unless “it plainly appears that New York is an inconvenient forum and that another is available which will best serve the ends of justice and convenience of the parties.” (Silver v Great Am.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Glen A. Sweeney, as of Valerie Sweeney
v.
Hertz Corporation
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 7, 1998.
250 A.D.2d 385
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louise Gruner Gans, J.), entered February 21,[*386] 1997, which granted the motion of defendant Ford Motor Company and the cross-motion of defendant The Hertz Corporation to dismiss the action, pursuant to CPLR 327, on the ground of forum non conveniens on condition defendants agree to accept process in North Carolina, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion and cross-motion denied, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings.

Where plaintiffs are all New York residents, the deceased passenger was a New York resident, the minivan was driven by a New York resident and was rented in New York by a New York resident and was to be returned here, and the defendants are authorized to do business in New York, .the fact that the one-car accident occurred in North Carolina and the police and emergency personnel witnesses and the medical examiner reside there does not warrant dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds.

It is well settled that a plaintiffs choice of forum should not be disturbed absent a balance of factors strongly favoring the defendants and, although the residence of a plaintiff is not the sole determining factor on a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens, it is generally “ ‘ “the most significant factor in the equation” ’ [citation omitted]” (Cadet v Short Line Term. Agency, 173 AD2d 270). The IAS Court’s reliance upon Bader & Bader v Ford (66 AD2d 642, appeal dismissed 48 NY2d 649) was misplaced inasmuch as that was a stockholder derivative action in which all the material events took place in Michigan, Indonesia and the Philippines. This Court found that action to be a species of “ ‘imported litigation’ ” (supra, at 647), a characterization that certainly does not apply to the within action. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.