British West Indies Guaranty Trust Co. v. Banque Internationale A Luxembourg

172 A.D.2d 234, 567 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4447
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 9, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by46 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 234 (British West Indies Guaranty Trust Co. v. Banque Internationale A Luxembourg) 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
British West Indies Guaranty Trust Co. v. Banque Internationale A Luxembourg, 172 A.D.2d 234, 567 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered on or about May 11, 1990, which, inter alia, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice to its recommencement in the proper forum of the District Courts of and in Luxembourg, unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

It is well-accepted policy that forum-selection clauses are prima facie valid. In order to set aside such a clause, a party must show that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust or that the clause is invalid because of fraud or overreaching, such that a trial in the contractual forum would be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of his or her day in court. (The Bremen v Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 US 1, 12-18; Rokeby-Johnson v Kentucky Agric. Energy Corp., 108 AD2d 336, 339-341; Di Ruocco v Flamingo Beach Hotel & Casino, 163 AD2d 270.) The contractual provision in this case, designating Luxembourg as the venue for any disputes, is clear and unambiguous. Plaintiffs do not allege any fraud with respect to the jurisdictional provision itself. (See, Rokeby-Johnson v Kentucky Agric. Energy Corp., 108 AD2d, supra, at 341.) Nor is there any evidence of overreaching; the allegations that plaintiff Grace Sanchez Brownlow, the signatory to the contract, did not read the provision, or that it was not brought specifically to her attention are of no avail, since, as a signatory to the contract, she is presumed to know the contents of the instrument she signed and to have assented to such terms. (See, Imero Fiorentino Assocs. v Green, 85 AD2d 419, 420.)

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them to be unpersuasive. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Asch and Smith, JJ.

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

Related

CSI IT, LLC v. Dungey
2025 NY Slip Op 03244 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Zoey Paint Corp. v. Commercial Credit Group Inc.
2024 NY Slip Op 32361(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Kravitz v. Chicken Soup for the Soul, LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 02664 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Breakaway Courier Corp. v. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.
2023 NY Slip Op 02077 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Amazing Home Care Servs., LLC v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assur. Co. Inc.
2021 NY Slip Op 00986 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Northern Leasing Systems, Inc. v. French
48 Misc. 3d 43 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Rubens v. UBS AG
126 A.D.3d 421 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Man-Hung Lee v. Hartsdale Canine Cemetery, Inc.
28 Misc. 3d 234 (White Plains City Court, 2010)
KMK Safety Consulting, LLC v. Jeffrey M. Brown Associates, Inc.
72 A.D.3d 650 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Tatko Stone Products, Inc. v. Davis-Giovinzazzo Construction Co.
65 A.D.3d 778 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Studebaker-Worthington Leasing Corp. v. New Concepts Realty, Inc.
25 Misc. 3d 1 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Ables & Hall Builders
582 F. Supp. 2d 605 (S.D. New York, 2008)
Harry Casper, Inc. v. Pines Associates, L.P.
53 A.D.3d 764 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Fear & Fear, Inc. v. N.I.I. Brokerage, LLC
50 A.D.3d 185 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
In Re Demeo
377 B.R. 731 (S.D. Florida, 2007)
Citicorp Leasing, Inc. v. DeMeo (In re DeMeo)
377 B.R. 731 (S.D. Florida, 2007)
Sony Ericsson Mobile Commc'ns USA, Inc. v. Agere Sys., Inc.
2007 NCBC 28 (North Carolina Business Court, 2007)
Sterling National Bank v. Eastern Shipping Worldwide, Inc.
35 A.D.3d 222 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
172 A.D.2d 234, 567 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/british-west-indies-guaranty-trust-co-v-banque-internationale-a-nyappdiv-1991.