CK's Supermarket Ltd. v. Peak Entertainment Holdings, Inc.

37 A.D.3d 348, 831 N.Y.S.2d 138
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 22, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 348 (CK's Supermarket Ltd. v. Peak Entertainment Holdings, Inc.) 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
CK's Supermarket Ltd. v. Peak Entertainment Holdings, Inc., 37 A.D.3d 348, 831 N.Y.S.2d 138 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered August 1, 2006, which, in an action on a guaranty, granted defendant’s pre-answer motion to dismiss the action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The action was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, there being no evidence that the subject guaranty, which was drafted and executed in the United Kingdom, involved any purposeful activity by defendant in New York (see O’Brien v Hackensack Univ. Med. Ctr., 305 AD2d 199, 200-201 [2003]). Indeed, the only purposeful activity alleged is that defendant’s New York-based counsel assisted in negotiating the guaranty. That is not enough (see Glassman v Hyder, 23 NY2d 354, 363 [1968]). Nor does plaintiff show that defendant is present in New York. Moreover, assuming jurisdiction, the action should in any event be dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens. The parties are both foreign corporations that maintain their principal offices in the United Kingdom, where an alternative forum exists, and it does not appear that either party is authorized to do business in New York or maintains an office in New York, or that the debt underlying the guarantee is related to any business activity in New York. That the guaranty was [349]*349negotiated by defendant’s New York-based counsel, and that defendant would not be unduly inconvenienced by a New York forum, would not persuade us to retain the action. Concur— Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Marlow, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Related

Lash v. TDR Capital LLP
2025 NY Slip Op 06282 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Summit Construction Services Group, Inc. v. ACT Abatement, LLC
34 Misc. 3d 823 (New York Supreme Court, 2011)
Andrews v. Modell
84 A.D.3d 843 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
37 A.D.3d 348, 831 N.Y.S.2d 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cks-supermarket-ltd-v-peak-entertainment-holdings-inc-nyappdiv-2007.