Mollendo Equipment Co. v. Sekisan Trading Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Mollendo Equipment Co. v. Sekisan Trading Co.

374 N.E.2d 623, 43 N.Y.2d 916, 403 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1826

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 16, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 374 N.E.2d 623 (Mollendo Equipment Co. v. Sekisan Trading Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mollendo Equipment Co. v. Sekisan Trading Co., 374 N.E.2d 623, 43 N.Y.2d 916, 403 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1826 (N.Y. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

[918]*918OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order affirmed, with costs. As the pleadings and affidavits were framed, the Appellate Division was entitled to find, as it did, that New York is an inconvenient forum for this litigation. It would also have been entitled to find otherwise, especially since any forum would have been inconvenient for court and parties. But the Appellate Division has been granted considerable discretion in this area, and, on the record made by the parties, it cannot be said that the discretion was abused as a matter of law (Irrigation & Ind. Dev. Corp. v IndagS. A., 37 NY2d 522, 525).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

[918]*918OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order affirmed, with costs. As the pleadings and affidavits were framed, the Appellate Division was entitled to find, as it did, that New York is an inconvenient forum for this litigation. It would also have been entitled to find otherwise, especially since any forum would have been inconvenient for court and parties. But the Appellate Division has been granted considerable discretion in this area, and, on the record made by the parties, it cannot be said that the discretion was abused as a matter of law (Irrigation & Ind. Dev. Corp. v IndagS. A., 37 NY2d 522, 525).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 N.E.2d 623, 43 N.Y.2d 916, 403 N.Y.S.2d 729, 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 1826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mollendo-equipment-co-v-sekisan-trading-co-ny-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack