Arsenis v. Atlantic Tankers Limited

• Decision Date: 06 May 1963
• Citation: 240 N.Y.S.2d 69,39 Misc.2d 124
• Parties: Gerasimos ARSENIS, Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC TANKERS LTD. and Maritime Brokers, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: New York City Court

Page 69

240 N.Y.S.2d 69

39 Misc.2d 124

Gerasimos ARSENIS, Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC TANKERS LTD. and Maritime Brokers, Inc., Defendants.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Special Term, New York County, Part I.

May 6, 1963.

Nicholas Tsoucalas, New York City, for plaintiff.

Zock, Petrie, Sheneman & Reid, New York City, for defendant, Atlantic Tankers Ltd., appearing specially for this motion and no other purpose.

HARRISON S. JACKSON, Judge.

Plaintiff is a Greek seaman who was allegedly employed by one of the defendants as a Second Mate and thereafter unjustifiably reduced in pay and grade to an Able-bodied Seaman. His complaint states two causes of action: unpaid wages based on the difference in pay, and statutory penalties. The defendants are, respectively, a Liberian Steamship Company doing business in New York, and its United States agent, a New York Corporation.

The contract of employment was executed in Greece and written in Greek. It provided, inter alia, that Greek law would govern and that Greece would be the exclusive forum for any disputes arising out of it.

Based on this provision, defendants move to dismiss on the grounds that this court has no jurisdiction over the first cause of action, which is for unpaid wages. Defendants concede that this court has jurisdiction over the second cause of action, which is for penalties for unpaid wages under Title 46 U.S.C. §§ 596 and 597; but they contend that this must be severed and await a prior adjudication of the first cause of action in Greece. Further, they contend that the first cause of action should not be based on unpaid wages, but on a disrating.

If it were not for the exclusive jurisdiction clause, there would be no question but that the action is maintainable in this court. State courts have concurrent jurisdiction over suits brought by seamen under federal statutes. (M. & T. Trust Co. v. Export S. S. Corp., 143 Misc. 1, 256 N.Y.S. 590, rev. 236 App.Div. 415, 259 N.Y.S. 393, rev. 262 N.Y. 92, 189 N.E. 214, cert. den. 290 U.S. 650, 54 S.Ct. 70, 78 L.Ed. 563; Norton v. Southern Ry. Co., 138 Misc. 784, 246 N.Y.S. 676; McConnell v. Williams S. S. Co., 142 Misc. 269, 254 N.Y.S. 597, rev. on other grounds 143 Misc. 426, 256 N.Y.S. 858.)

But a clause in a contract which attempts to confer exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts of another state or country to the exclusion of New York courts will be declared void as against public policy, if it is attempted to be set up as a bar to an action otherwise maintainable in New York (Kyler v. United States Trotting Association, 12 A.D.2d 874, 210 N.Y.S.2d 25, app. den. 12 A.D.2d 1004, 212 N.Y.S.2d 1022.) This does not constitute a deprivation of property rights. Freedom of contract although a sacred right, is not an absolute one. Since seamen have always been considered as special wards of the courts, their contracts can be invaded, especially when the purpose is to protect their wages. (Patterson v. The Bark Eudora, 190 U.S. 169, 23 S.Ct. 821, 47 L.Ed. 1002.)

Consequently, this court holds that the exclusive...