| Haussmann v Baumann |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 03009 [44 NY3d 1007] |
| May 20, 2025 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, December 3, 2025 |
| Rebecca R. Haussmann, as Trustee of the Konstantin S. Haussmann Trust, et al., Appellants, v Werner Baumann et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. |
Appeal, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered June 22, 2023. The Appellate Division order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Andrew Borrok, J.), which had granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.
Haussmann v Baumann, 217 AD3d 569, affirmed.
Courts
- Forum Non Conveniens
- Shareholder Derivative Action
An Appellate Division order which affirmed a Supreme Court order dismissing a putative shareholder derivative action for reasons that included forum non conveniens was affirmed. Supreme Court considered all relevant factors, made no legal error in doing so and gave due weight to plaintiffs' choice of forum. The fact that one plaintiff was a New York resident did not mandate a contrary result.
Bottini & Bottini, Inc., La Jolla, California (Francis A. Bottini, Jr., admitted pro hac vice, Michelle C. Lerach, admitted pro hac vice, and Albert Y. Chang of counsel), Powers & Santola, LLP, Albany (Michael J. Hutter of counsel), and Weiss Law, New York City (Joseph H. Weiss of counsel), for appellants.
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York City (William Savitt, Noah B. Yavitz and Emily R. Barreca of counsel), for Werner Baumann and others, respondents.
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York City (Lara Samet Buchwald and Chui-Lai Cheung of counsel), for Bank of America Corporation and another, respondents.
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York City (Joel Kurtzberg, Herbert S. Washer and Adam S. Mintz of counsel), for Credit Suisse Group AG and another, respondents.
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York City (Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., David M.J. Rein and Justin J. DeCamp of counsel), Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, Washington, D.C. (Kevin Carroll of counsel), and Institute of International Bankers, New York City (Stephanie Webster of counsel), for Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and another, amici curiae.
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, New York City (Michael C. Keats, Scott B. Luftglass and Alexis R. Casamassima of counsel), and U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, Washington, D.C., for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, amicus curiae.
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division insofar as appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
Supreme Court dismissed this putative shareholder derivative action for reasons including that "in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum" (73 Misc 3d 1234[A], 2021 NY Slip Op 51232[U], *2 [Sup Ct, NY County 2021], quoting CPLR 327 [a]).[FN*] "In general, a decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is addressed to a court's discretion, and we will review it only to decide whether discretion has been abused" (Mashreqbank PSC v Ahmed Hamad Al Gosaibi & Bros. Co., 23 NY3d 129, 137 [2014] [citation omitted]). "[I]f the courts below considered the various relevant factors in making such a determination, 'there has been no abuse of discretion reviewable by this [C]ourt,' even if we would have weighed those factors differently" (Estate of Kainer v UBS AG, 37 NY3d 460, 467 [2021], quoting Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 479 [1984]; see id. at 467, 468 n 3 [identifying relevant factors]; Pahlavi, 62 NY2d at 479[*2][same]). Here, Supreme Court considered all relevant factors and made no legal error in doing so (see Kainer, 37 NY3d at 467, 468 n 3). Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the court gave due weight to plaintiffs' choice of forum. The fact that one plaintiff is a{**44 NY3d at 1009} New York resident does not mandate a contrary result (see CPLR 327 [a] ["The domicile or residence in this state of any party to the action shall not preclude the court from staying or dismissing the action"]).
Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman, Halligan and Landicino[FN*] concur. Judge Garcia took no part.
Order insofar as appealed from affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.