BARLOW v. HERTZ CORPORATION

In this situation, where the defendant has made no showing whatsoever that a California forum would best serve the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties, its motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds was properly denied. (See, CPLR 327; Islamic Republic v Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474.)

Moreover, where the plaintiff in this action is a California domiciliary and defendant Hertz has significant contacts with New York State, and the accident occurred in New York State, there is no reason to apply California law. The defendant has not shown that California's interest in applying its law to out-of-State accidents which include at least one of its domiciliaries is so important as to override the application of the law of the State where the accident occurred. (Neumeier v Kuehner, 31 N.Y.2d 121; see also, Roach v McGuire Bennett, 146 A.D.2d 89 [3d Dept 1989].)

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Ross, Milonas, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.