Civil Procedure · MBE-tested
Joseph D. Shelton, Sr., Respondent, v. Cable Express, Inc., et al., Appellants
275 A.D.2d 1017713 N.Y.S.2d 603·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2000·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Joseph D. Shelton, Sr., Respondent, v Cable Express, Inc., et al., Appellants.
[713 NYS2d 603]
[MAJORITY]
—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens (see, CPLR 327 [a]). Contrary to defendants’ contention, the occurrence of the motor vehicle accident in New York is not the only connection with this State. An eyewitness is a New York resident and, as a result of the investigation of the New York State Police, defendant William K. Glosser was cited for following too closely in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 (a) (cf., Dales v Tiessen, 231 AD2d 920; Singh v Zuidema, 221 AD2d 1020). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Gerace, J. — Dismiss Pleading.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.