Honeywell International Inc. v. ARC Energy Services, Inc.

2017 NY Slip Op 5686, 152 A.D.3d 444, 55 N.Y.S.3d 658
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 13, 2017
Docket653341/15 4460 4459
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5686 (Honeywell International Inc. v. ARC Energy Services, 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
Honeywell International Inc. v. ARC Energy Services, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 5686, 152 A.D.3d 444, 55 N.Y.S.3d 658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered July 8, 2016, which granted defendant ARC Energy Services, Inc.’s (ARC) motion to dismiss the complaint as against it on the ground of forum non conveniens, and order, same court and Justice, entered December 27, 2016, which upon granting leave to reargue, adhered to the July 8, 2016 decision, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion to dismiss denied.

Plaintiff and defendant ARC entered into a services agreement which included an explicit choice of law and forum provision selecting New York law and New York courts. Supreme Court erred in considering ARC’s forum non conveniens argument.

“[W]here a party to a contract has agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of a court, that party is precluded from attacking the court’s jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds” (Sterling Natl. Bank v Eastern Shipping Worldwide, Inc., 35 AD3d 222, 223 [1st Dept 2006]; see also National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v Worley, 257 AD2d 228, 232 [1st Dept 1999]). Moreover, the services agreement satisfied the requirements of New York General Obligations Law §§ 5-1401 and 5-1402, and therefore, the court did not have discretion under CPLR 327 (b) to consider the forum non conveniens argument.

Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Webber, Kahn and Kern, JJ.

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

Related

Milmar Food Group II v. Applied Underwriters
29 Neb. Ct. App. 714 (Nebraska Court of Appeals, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 5686, 152 A.D.3d 444, 55 N.Y.S.3d 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/honeywell-international-inc-v-arc-energy-services-inc-nyappdiv-2017.