The federal diversity case of Rosenthal v. Warren afforded the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, the opportunity to examine New York's choice-of-law rules. In so doing, the Second Circuit failed to recognize the import of Neumeier v. Keuhner, in which the New York Court of Appeals declared a change in its choice-of-law policy from an absolute "interest analysis" approach to one which in certain circumstances would cause courts to look automatically to the place of the alleged tort for the applicable law: The Neumeier holding may be read to limit this policy change to "situations involving guest statutes in conflict settings." However, when this limitation is viewed in light of the development of New York's choice-of-law theory, one has to conclude that the limitation was not meant to exist and that the Neumeier decision should be given broad controlling effect.
"Rosenthal v. Warren & New England Baptist Hospital,"
Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 2
, Article 13.
Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol2/iss1/13