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
New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 16, 1978·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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).

374 N.E.2d 623 (Mollendo Equipment Co. v. Sekisan Trading Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

American BankNote Corp. v. Daniele
45 A.D.3d 338 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
P.T. Delami Garment Industries v. di Torino
164 Misc. 2d 38 (New York Supreme Court, 1994)
Barcelona Hotel, Ltd. v. Hadlow
82 A.D.2d 790 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Obex Trading Corp. v. Maraven
68 A.D.2d 841 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Epstein v. Sirivejkul
64 A.D.2d 216 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)