Northern District of New York and moved, inter alia, to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction.  Judge Ryan, sitting in the Northern District by designation, denied the motion2 but, recognizing the contrary decision in Podolsky, made the certificate specified in 28 U.S.C. 1292(b).  Since the issue was identical with that already argued in Minichiello v. Rosenberg, we granted leave to appeal, with the case to be submitted on briefs.


4
Seider v. Roth was an action by New York residents against Lemiux, a Canadian, for injuries suffered in an automobile accident in Vermont.3  Plaintiffs attached in New York a liability policy issued to Lemiux in Canada by Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., which does business in New York.  The Court of Appeals, speaking through Chiefbut much of the evidence of damages may be there, it will rarely be 'the most convenient' one since the other witnesses to the accident are elsewhere-- possibly far away.5  But the Justice's final consideration-- the plaintiff's difficulty in bringing the defendant before the forum-- applies with even greater force to the state of plaintiff's residence than to that of injury in light of the development of long-arm statutes that will generally allow the state of injury to obtain personal jurisdiction of the insured and so avoid the need for a direct action against the insurer.


9
We thus believe that, all things considered, the Supreme Court would sustain the validity of a state statute permitting direct actions against insurers doing business in the state in favor of residents