Joseph Fekah, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Baker Hughes Incorporated, Defendant-Respondent.
10116 153767/17
Appellate Division, First Department
October 17, 2019
2019 NY Slip Op 07500
Published by
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Decided on October 17, 2019
Manzanet-Daniels, J.P., Gische, Webber, Moulton, JJ.
Joseph Fekah, etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Baker Hughes Incorporated, Defendant-Respondent.
Pradal & Associates PLLC, New York (Philippe Pradal of counsel), for appellants.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York (Noelle M. Reed of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara Jaffe, J.), entered September 27, 2018, bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered on or about September 6, 2018, which granted defendant‘s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Nor do plaintiffs show grounds to disturb the court‘s determination that defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction pursuant to
Plaintiffs also do not show that dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds was an abuse of the court‘s discretion (see CPLR 327[a]; Swaney v Academy Bus Tours of N.Y., Inc., 158 AD3d 437 [2018]). The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to dismiss an action otherwise jurisdictionally sound if it finds “in the interest of substantial justice the action
Plaintiffs essentially argue that the situs of the accident is irrelevant for forum non conveniens purposes, but the readily distinguishable cases they cite only highlight the argument‘s weaknesses. In Corines v Dobson (135 AD2d 390 [1st Dept 1987]), this Court held New York was the proper forum for a case arising from a car accident in Guadeloupe because the plaintiff lived here, and essentially all medical care was rendered here, neither of which is true in the instant case where, to the contrary, most of the medical care — whose allegedly poor quality is at the heart of plaintiffs’ claims — was administered in Gabon and South Africa. In Neville v Anglo Am. Mgt. Corp. (191 AD2d 240 [1st Dept 1993]), which arose from a fatal motor vehicle accident in England, two of four plaintiffs were New York residents, defendants were New York corporations, and the crux of plaintiffs’ claims was the alleged negligence of the chaperone alleged to be defendants’ employee.
Plaintiffs claim their key witnesses are here, but their argument is unavailing, as the individuals they list as potential witnesses are at very high levels of management at defendant‘s company, and plaintiffs’ conclusory assertions that these individuals have personal knowledge of the relevant facts are unsupported by anything in the record.
We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: OCTOBER 17, 2019
CLERK