22 N.Y.2d 333 (1968)
When deciding whether to dismiss a case based on forum non conveniens, courts must balance the burden on the local courts and hardship to the defendant against the availability of an alternative forum for the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s interest in litigating in the chosen forum.
Summary
This case addresses the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in New York. The plaintiffs, representing the estates of passengers killed in a plane crash in Peru, sued the Brazilian airline (Varig) and the American aircraft manufacturer (Boeing) in New York. The defendants moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, arguing that New York was an inconvenient forum. The Court of Appeals held that the Appellate Division erred by failing to consider all relevant factors, including the unavailability of another forum where both defendants could be sued together. The case was remitted to the Appellate Division for further consideration of all relevant factors.
Facts
A Boeing 707, operated by Varig, crashed in Lima, Peru, killing all passengers. The decedents were nationals of Hungary, Great Britain, and Mexico. The plaintiffs, representing the deceased passengers, sued Varig (a Brazilian corporation doing business in New York) and Boeing (a Delaware corporation also doing business in New York) in New York. The plaintiffs resided in Hungary, Great Britain, and Florida. The cause of action arose outside of New York.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens. The Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaints on the condition that the defendants waive the statute of limitations defense in any actions commenced in a proper jurisdiction. The plaintiffs appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division erred in dismissing the complaints based on forum non conveniens by failing to adequately consider the unavailability of another forum in which both defendants could be joined.
Holding
Yes, because the Appellate Division failed to consider all relevant factors, including the absence of another forum where both defendants could be sued, constituting an error of law.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals acknowledged that New York courts are not obligated to hear cases between nonresident parties on causes of action lacking a connection to New York. The decision to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is generally discretionary. However, this discretion must be exercised by weighing all pertinent considerations. The court stated, “Among the pertinent factors to be considered and weighed, in applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens, are, on the one hand, the burden on the New York courts and the extent of any hardship to the defendant that prosecution of the suit would entail and, on the other, such matters as the unavailability elsewhere of a forum in which the plaintiff may obtain effective redress and the extent to which the plaintiff’s interests may otherwise be properly served by pursuing his claim in this State.” The Court found the Appellate Division erred by not considering the “special circumstances” identified by the Special Term, mainly the absence of another forum where both the airline and the manufacturer could be sued together. The court emphasized that it is an error of law for the Appellate Division to exclude consideration of such circumstances. Because the Appellate Division disregarded these factors, the Court of Appeals reversed and remitted the case for further consideration. The court also noted that the residence of one plaintiff in New York could be considered on remand. The court clarified its power to review issues related to abuse of discretion even when lower courts refuse jurisdiction, citing Langfelder v. Universal Labs., 293 N.Y. 200, 206 as precedent.