In Brinson v. Chrysler Financial, 43 A.D.3d 846 (2d Dept. 2007) the Court reversed the trial court's order denying defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to CPLR 327, on the ground of forum non conveniens. Id. Brinson involved a lawsuit arising out of plaintiff's involvement in a single-vehicle accident in North Carolina. The plaintiff produced a North Carolina driver's license after the accident, and provided the police at the accident scene with a North Carolina address. He later executed a written statement listing his address as a location in North Carolina and his business address as a location in Staten Island, New York. Plaintiff received medical treatment in North Carolina, the damaged vehicle was towed from the scene by a North Carolina company and repaired by another North Carolina company, and Plaintiff purchased another vehicle in North Carolina after the accident, providing a North Carolina address during that purchase. Id. at 847. The plaintiff in Brinson commenced an action in Richmond County, New York, alleging that he was a resident of that county and that the accident was caused by a defect in the vehicle. Id. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens, submitting that North Carolina was the more convenient forum in light of the North Carolina witnesses including police personnel, emergency service workers and physicians for whom travel to New York would constitute a hardship. Id. The plaintiff opposed the motion, submitting in a conclusory manner that 1) he was a New York resident and operated a business in New York; and 2) injuries that he suffered in the accident would make travel to North Carolina a hardship for him. Id. at 847-848. The Second Department reversed the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to dismiss, concluding that given the "questionable dual residency of the plaintiff," the action's "marginal nexus" to New York, the presence of numerous essential nonparty witnesses in North Carolina and plaintiff's conclusory opposition papers, the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion. Id. at 848.