Koko Contracting, Inc. v. Continental Environmental Asbestos Removal Corp.

272 A.D.2d 585, 709 N.Y.S.2d 825, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6035
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 30, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 272 A.D.2d 585 (Koko Contracting, Inc. v. Continental Environmental Asbestos Removal Corp.) 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
Koko Contracting, Inc. v. Continental Environmental Asbestos Removal Corp., 272 A.D.2d 585, 709 N.Y.S.2d 825, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6035 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the defendant Zurich Insurance Co. is obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiff Koko Contracting, Inc., in an action entitled Jaroslav v United States of America, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Index No. CV 96 2864, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered May 11, 1999, which granted the motion of the defendant Zurich Insurance Co. to dismiss the complaint on the basis of a forum selection agreement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

[586]*586The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint on the ground that the forum selection clause contained in the subject insurance policy provided that any action arising from the terms and conditions of the policy shall be instituted and litigated in the courts of the State of Colorado. Under New York law, forum selection clauses are prima facie valid (see, Brooke Group v JCH Syndicate 488, 87 NY2d 530, 534; Micro Balanced Prods. Corp. v Hlavin Indus., 238 AD2d 284, 285; British W. Indies Guar. Trust Co. v Banque Internationale A Luxembourg, 172 AD2d 234). “Forum selection clauses are enforced because they provide certainty and predictability in the resolution of disputes” (Brooke Group v JCH Syndicate 488, supra, at 534). Here, the plaintiffs failed to show either that enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable, unjust, or would contravene public policy, or that the clause is invalid because of fraud or overreaching (see, National Union Fire Ins. Co. v Williams, 223 AD2d 395, 398; Hirschman v National Textbook Co., 184 AD2d 494, 495; British W. Indies Guar. Trust Co. v Banque Internationale A Luxembourg, supra; Di Ruocco v Flamingo Beach Hotel & Casino, 163 AD2d 270, 271-272). Friedmann, J. P., Krausman, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Pratik Apparels, Ltd. v. Shintex Apparel Group, Inc.
96 A.D.3d 922 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Sterling National Bank v. Eastern Shipping Worldwide, Inc.
35 A.D.3d 222 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Boss v. American Express Financial Advisors, Inc.
15 A.D.3d 306 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
McINTOSH COUNTY BANK v. St Regis Mohawk Tribe
2004 NY Slip Op 50920(U) (New York Supreme Court, Nassau County, 2004)
Premium Risk Group, Inc. v. Legion Insurance
294 A.D.2d 345 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Seneca v. Seneca
293 A.D.2d 56 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
272 A.D.2d 585, 709 N.Y.S.2d 825, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koko-contracting-inc-v-continental-environmental-asbestos-removal-corp-nyappdiv-2000.