OK…so you have a case with a good cause of action, perhaps a professional negligence case against an insurance broker who told you not to get flood insurance just before Superstorm Sandy.  You timely bring the action only to be faced with a motion to dismiss on the basis of lack of jurisdiction as well as forum non conveniens.  What does it all mean?

Corporate Jet Support, Inc. v Lobosco Ins. Group, L.L.C. 2015 NY Slip Op 32438(U)
October 7, 2015 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 651976/2015  Judge: Cynthia S. Kern reminds us that NY may but is not required to hear all cases.

“Plaintiff commenced this professional malpractice action in NewYork alleging the defendant insurance broker deviated from accepted standards of practice by failing to procure flood insurance for the plaintiffs inventory located in the State of New Jersey. Defendant now ‘ moves for an Order pursuant to CPLR § 3211(a)(8) and/or§ 327 dismissing plaintiffs complaint with prejudice pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens and lack of personal jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, this action is dismissed based on forum non conveniens. ”

“As an initial matter, defendant’s motion to dismiss this action on the ground that this court lacks personal jurisdiction over it is denied. It is well settled that a corporation’s  authorization to do business in the State and concomitant designation of the Secretary of State as its agent for service of process is consent to personal jurisdiction. See Doubet LLC v. Trustees of Columbia Univ. in the City of N. Y., 99 A.D.3d 433, 444-445 (1st Dept 2012); Augsbury Corp. v. Petrokey Corp., 97 A.D.2d 173, 175 (3rd Dept 1983). It is equally weil settled that New York’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over foreign entities that are registered to do business in the State is consistent with due process. Nearly a century ago, the Supreme Court concluded that a statute requiring a foreign corporation to consent to jurisdiction by’appointing an agent for service does “not deprive the defendant of due process of law even if it took the defendant by surprise.” Penn. Fire Ins. Co. v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U.S. 93, 95 (1917); see also Augsbury, 97 A.D.2d at 176 (“We reject [defendant’s] argument that due process has been violated by the finding of personal jurisdiction solely on the basis of its registration to do business. The privilege of doing business in New York is accompanied by an automatic basis for personal jurisdiction.”). ”

“However, defendant’s motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens is granted. Although nonresidents are permitted to litigate their cases in New York as a matter of comity,  New York courts are not required to entertain litigation which does not have any connection with the state. Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 478 (1984). Pursuant to the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens, which is also codified in CPLR § 327, a court may dismiss an action even though it is jurisdictionally sound where it would be better adjudicated elsewhere. Id. at 478-479. “The burden rests upon the defendant challenging the forum to demonstrate relevant private or public interest factors which militate against accepting the litigation.” Id. at 479. Among the factors to be considered “are the burden on the New York courts, the potential hardship to the defendant, and the unavailability of an alternative forum in which plaintiff may bring suit. The court may also consider that both parties to the action are nonresidents and that the transaction out of which the cause of action arose occurred primarily in a foreign jurisdiction.” Id. at 479. ”