From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mollendo Equipment Co., Inc. v. Sekisan Trading Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 16, 1978
374 N.E.2d 623 (N.Y. 1978)

Opinion

Submitted January 11, 1978

Decided February 16, 1978

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, SAMUEL R. ROSENBERG, J.

Louis C. Jones and Nicholas M. Cherot for appellant.

Benjamin E. Haller and John P. Love for respondent.


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 Indag S.A., 37 N.Y.2d 522, 525).

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

Mollendo Equipment Co., Inc. v. Sekisan Trading Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 16, 1978
374 N.E.2d 623 (N.Y. 1978)
Case details for

Mollendo Equipment Co., Inc. v. Sekisan Trading Co.

Case Details

Full title:MOLLENDO EQUIPMENT CO., INC., Appellant, v. SEKISAN TRADING CO., LTD.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 16, 1978

Citations

374 N.E.2d 623 (N.Y. 1978)
374 N.E.2d 623
403 N.Y.S.2d 729

Citing Cases

Obex Trading Corp. v. Maraven

These few contacts with New York, unrelated, as they were, to any regular business activity conducted here by…

Epstein v. Sirivejkul

There is no nexus between this jurisdiction and the instant suit. The cause neither arose in, nor touched…