Bank of New York v. Bank of America

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bank of New York v. Bank of America

247 A.D.2d 230, 668 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 897

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 5, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 230 (Bank of New York v. Bank of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bank of New York v. Bank of America, 247 A.D.2d 230, 668 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered June 12, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly held that a ruling by the Australian courts that New South Wales is a forum non conveniens for the parties’ dispute does not operate as res judicata and collateral estoppel on the merits of whether plaintiffs herein, who were the defendants in Australia, breached the agreement in issue. In the latter regard, issues of fact remain unresolved, particularly as to whether plaintiffs acted in good faith and expended their best efforts to consummate the transaction.

Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered June 12, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly held that a ruling by the Australian courts that New South Wales is a forum non conveniens for the parties’ dispute does not operate as res judicata and collateral estoppel on the merits of whether plaintiffs herein, who were the defendants in Australia, breached the agreement in issue. In the latter regard, issues of fact remain unresolved, particularly as to whether plaintiffs acted in good faith and expended their best efforts to consummate the transaction.

Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 230, 668 N.Y.S.2d 355, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-new-york-v-bank-of-america-nyappdiv-1998.