Justice Robert Reed

Defendants broker-dealer moved for dismissal of Kennedy's complaint asserting forum non conveniens. Alternatively, they alleged Biescheuvel must be dismissed from the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction as he did not transact business in New York. Kennedy claimed defendants induced him to invest in nine unsuitable tenant-in-common (TIC) properties that significantly decreased in value causing him substantial damages. Kennedy asserted defendants failed to meet the burden to dismiss for forum non conveniens as there was a factual nexus between the dispute and NY, among other things. He asserted the court had jurisdiction over Biescheuvel as the action arose from his actions in NY, and exercise of personal jurisdiction over him comported with due process. While noting jurisdiction “may exist,” raising an issue of fact of Biescheuvel's interaction with defendant Cabot Investment Properties, the court found defendants met their burden under CPLR 327 as the case did not have a substantial nexus with NY, but California had a significant interest in the outcome. Kennedy and defendants were all nonresidents, and the underlying transaction occurred in CA, and hardship would ensue to defendants litigating the action in NY. Thus, dismissal against defendants was granted.