In Silver v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 29 NY2d 356 (1972) the Court of Appeals evaluated a case in which a nonresident plaintiff from Hawaii sued a New York corporation authorized to do business in Hawaii. The nonresident plaintiff's complaint had two causes of action sounding in defamation and conspiracy. Specifically, the nonresident plaintiff alleged: "that the defendant, in New York, Hawaii and elsewhere, conspired to injure and defame him and that, as part of the conspiracy, the defendant provided insurance protection, by means of a special 'libel and slander rider,' for person who 'spoke' of the plaintiff as being 'a rough technician,' 'intellectually dishonest' and 'mentally sick.' " 25 In this watershed decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the judicial policy of rejecting forum non conveniens motions based solely on the residency of one of the parties to the action. In addressing the former rule concerning forum non conveniens, the Court of Appeals stated: "Further thought persuades us that our current rule--which prohibits the doctrine of forum non conveniens from being invoked if one of the parties is a New York resident--should be relaxed. Its application should turn on considerations of justice, fairness and convenience and not solely on the residence of one of the parties. Although such residence is, of course, an important factor to be considered, forum non conveniens relief should be granted when it plainly appears that New York is an inconvenient forum and that another is available which will best serve the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties." (Id. at 361.)