State Bank of India v. Taj Lanka Hotels Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State Bank of India v. Taj Lanka Hotels Ltd.

259 A.D.2d 291, 686 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3263

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 4, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 291 (State Bank of India v. Taj Lanka Hotels Ltd.) 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

State Bank of India v. Taj Lanka Hotels Ltd., 259 A.D.2d 291, 686 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme .Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered March 25, 1998, which denied the motion of defendant Indian Hotels Company to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction or on the basis of forum non conveniens, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly found that defendant Indian Hotels had consented to the jurisdiction of New York’s courts since the guarantees executed by Indian Hotels, in addition to being payable in New York, clearly incorporate the terms of the underlying note which, in turn and with equal clarity, incorporates all of the terms of the Loan Agreement, including its consent to New York jurisdiction clause (see, Dakota Gasification Co. v Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 964 F2d 732, 735, cert denied sub nom. Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp. v Dakota Gasification Co., 506 US 1048; Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v Feutz, 182 F2d 752, 756-757). Further, Indian Hotels not only guaranteed repayment of the subject note, but also that repayment would be made in the manner set forth in the Loan Agreement. The guarantee of the repayment obligation expressly to be performed in New York was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction upon appellant pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1) (see, Skrabalak v Rock, 208 AD2d 1100, 1102; A.I. Trade Fin. v Petra Bank, 989 F2d 76, 81; Lone Star Indus. v Chieftain Cement Corp., 795 F Supp 87, 89-90).

Given defendants’ consent to New York jurisdiction and their admitted default on unconditional instruments for the payment of money only, the motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss based on forum [292]*292non conveniens (see, CPLR 327 [a]; Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478-479, cert denied 469 US 1108). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Lerner, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme .Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered March 25, 1998, which denied the motion of defendant Indian Hotels Company to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction or on the basis of forum non conveniens, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly found that defendant Indian Hotels had consented to the jurisdiction of New York’s courts since the guarantees executed by Indian Hotels, in addition to being payable in New York, clearly incorporate the terms of the underlying note which, in turn and with equal clarity, incorporates all of the terms of the Loan Agreement, including its consent to New York jurisdiction clause (see, Dakota Gasification Co. v Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 964 F2d 732, 735, cert denied sub nom. Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp. v Dakota Gasification Co., 506 US 1048; Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v Feutz, 182 F2d 752, 756-757). Further, Indian Hotels not only guaranteed repayment of the subject note, but also that repayment would be made in the manner set forth in the Loan Agreement. The guarantee of the repayment obligation expressly to be performed in New York was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction upon appellant pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1) (see, Skrabalak v Rock, 208 AD2d 1100, 1102; A.I. Trade Fin. v Petra Bank, 989 F2d 76, 81; Lone Star Indus. v Chieftain Cement Corp., 795 F Supp 87, 89-90).

Given defendants’ consent to New York jurisdiction and their admitted default on unconditional instruments for the payment of money only, the motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss based on forum [292]*292non conveniens (see, CPLR 327 [a]; Islamic Republic of Iran v Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 478-479, cert denied 469 US 1108). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Lerner, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 291, 686 N.Y.S.2d 44, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-bank-of-india-v-taj-lanka-hotels-ltd-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack