[Download] "Fotios S. Lambiris v. Neptune Maritime Co." by Supreme Court of New York # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

📘 Read Now     📥 Download

eBook details

• Title: Fotios S. Lambiris v. Neptune Maritime Co.
• Author : Supreme Court of New York
• Release Date : January 09, 1971
• Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
• Pages : * pages
• Size : 64 KB

Description

[38 A.D.2d 528 Page 529] The action in either Switzerland or Greece is to be instituted within three months after service of a copy of the order
to be entered hereon and compliance with the conditions imposed. "It is the general policy of the courts of this State, in
the absence of special circumstances, to reject actions between nonresidents founded on tort, where the cause of action arises
outside the State". (Aetna Ins. Co. v. Creole Petroleum Corp., 27 A.D.2d 518, affd. 23 N.Y.2d 717; see, also, Mayflower Rest.
Enterprises v. Gulf Amer. Corp., 36 A.D.2d 941; Jones v. United States Lines, 36 A.D.2d 601; Gilchrist v. Trans-Canada Air
Lines, 27 A.D.2d 524; Ginsburg v. Hearst Pub. Co., 5 A.D.2d 200, affd. 5 N.Y.2d 894.) The record herein does not indicate
any special circumstances impelling the retention of jurisdiction. The plaintiff is a domiciliary of Greece; the ship upon
which the accident occurred flies the Liberian flag; the defendant is a Liberian corporation with its principal place of business
in Switzerland and the accident occurred while the ship was in port in Venezuela -- the voyage having started from a port
in Virginia. And, it is to be noted that after the plaintiff sustained his injuries he was treated in Venezuela and returned
to his native Greece. The above factors indicate that trial of this action in New York would constitute an unnecessary burden
on the New York courts as well as an improper hardship on this foreign defendant. The fact that plaintiff asserts a cause
of action under the Jones Act does not require denial of the motion to dismiss based upon forum non conveniens where it appears
as here, that the governing factors indicate that United States law should not apply. (See Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571;
Hernandez v. Cali Inc., 32 A.D.2d 192, affd. 27 N.Y.2d 903.) Moreover, it does not appear that plaintiff cannot bring his
action in Switzerland where the defendant has its main office, nor does it conclusively appear that plaintiff may not bring
action in his native country -- Greece. In any event, the conditions under which we reverse adequately protect plaintiff if
either of those countries do not have or fail to exercise jurisdiction. Settle order on notice.

Free Download "Fotios S. Lambiris v. Neptune Maritime Co." PDF ePub Kindle