Courts apply the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens when necessary to prevent the imposition of an inconvenient jurisdiction on a litigant. A trial court may, in its discretion, dismiss a case even when contacts between the defendant and the forum state exist that may confer personal jurisdiction upon the trial court, if the case itself has no significant connection to the forum.

A resident plaintiff’s forum choice deserves deference, all else being more or less equal, but that choice does not foreclose a defendant from demonstrating that the private and public interest factors favor dismissal when another forum’s interests predominate.

In New York, the doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if they determine that the forum chosen by the plaintiff is highly inconvenient and not the most appropriate venue for the litigation, even if the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This doctrine is applied to ensure fairness and judicial efficiency, taking into account various private and public interest factors. While a New York resident plaintiff's choice of forum is given considerable weight, it is not absolute. The defendant can argue that the case should be dismissed in favor of another jurisdiction if they can show that the balance of conveniences and the interests of justice significantly favor another forum. Factors considered include the burden on New York courts, the potential hardship to the defendant, the availability of an alternative forum, the location of witnesses and evidence, and where the events in question took place. Ultimately, the decision to dismiss a case based on forum non conveniens lies within the discretion of the trial court.