Hall v New Jersey Tr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Hall v New Jersey Tr. 2013 NY Slip Op 33188(U) January 16, 2013 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 113945/11 Judge: Donna M. Mills Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various state and local government websites. These include the New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service, and the Bronx County Clerk's office. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. SCANNED ON 112312013 [* 1] [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE'OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 58 INDEX NO. 113945/1 I LISA HALL, - against - Plaintiff, NEW JERSEY TRANSIT, DECIS lON/OR DER Defendant. _____________________________________II_----------------------- DONNA M. MILLS, J.: Moving Defendant, New Jersey Transit seek an order pursuant to CPLR 3 321 1(a)(2) dismissing the Plaintiff's Verified Complaint in its entirety on the grounds that this Court lacks subject matterjurisdiction pursuant to the principles of comity. Plaintiff, Lisa Hall opposes the motion. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that she fell on an overcrowded escalator leading down to one of the New Jersey transit tracks at New York Penn Station on January 1, 201 1. This action involves allegations of negligence against the New Jersey Transit in the use and operation of its trains while loading passengers at Penn Station. Plaintiff was and continues to reside in New Jersey. New Jersey Transit is a public transportation system that serves not only the State of New Jersey but also New York, Orange and Rockland Counties in the State of New York. New Jersey Transit argues that although the venue might technically be proper in this Court because Plaintiff's alleged accident occurred in New York, it contends that the principles underlying the doctrine of comity strongly support a finding by this Court that it should decline to exercise such subject matter jurisdiction. ... .. . -... . .. . [* 3] c APPLICABLE LAW & DISCUSSION There is no question that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. The Supreme Court has broad jurisdiction that is generally unlimited and unqualified. Kaqen v. Kaqen, 21 N.Y.2d 532 (1968). The Supreme Court is permitted to decide all causes of action unless its jurisdiction has been specifically proscribed. Thrasherv. United States Liability Ins. Co., 19 N.Y.2d 159 (I 967); and Condon v. Associated Hospital Service, 287 N.Y. 411 (1942). Defendant in its moving papers readily admits that venue is technically proper in this Court, but asks this court to consider the principle.of comity to dismiss the case under the theory that this State should voluntarily defer to the law of New Jersey to promote uniformity of decision and harmony amongst the states. The doctrine of comity is not a rule of law, but one of practice, convenience and expediency. It does not of its own force compel a particular course of action. Rather, it is an expression of one [sltate s entirely voluntary decision to defer to the policy of another ( Ehrlich-Bober & Co. v. Universitv of Houston, 49 N.Y.2d 574,580,427N.Y.S.2d 604,404 N.E.2d 726 [I9801 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see De Rose v. New Jersey Tr. Rail Operations, 165 A.D.2d 42, 4 4 4 5 , 565 N.Y.S.2d 305 [I9911 ). Thus, a determination of whether New York is to give effect to another state s governmental acts is based on whether such acts are consistent with New York s public policy ( see Crair v. Brookdale Hosp. Med. Ctr., Cornell Univ., 94 N.Y.2d 524,528-529,707 N.Y.S.2d 375,728 N.E.2d 974 [2000]; Ehrlich-Bober & Co. v. Universitv of Houston, 49 N.Y.2d at 580, 427 N.Y.S.2d 604). This Court declines to exercise its discretion by dismissing the action. In light of the fact that this alleged accident occurred at New York s Penn Station, I find that New York has significant interests in protecting the residents and visitors who travel to and from this city via Penn Station. The mere fact that plaintiff is a New Jersey resident and the New Jersey Transit is a New Jersey corporation , does not tip the balance in this Court s [* 4] consideration in determining whether New Jersey is the preferred. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the motion of Moving Defendant to dismiss the complaint herein is denied in its entirety Dated:
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
