Camacho v. IO Practiceware, Inc.

• Decision Date: 02 February 2016
• Docket Number: 159653/13.,89
• Citation: 24 N.Y.S.3d 279,136 A.D.3d 415,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 00630
• Parties: Jorge S. CAMACHO, M.D., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. IO PRACTICEWARE, INC., Defendant–Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

136 A.D.3d 415
24 N.Y.S.3d 279
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 00630

Jorge S. CAMACHO, M.D., Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
IO PRACTICEWARE, INC., Defendant–Respondent.

89
159653/13.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Feb. 2, 2016.

24 N.Y.S.3d 279

Law Offices of Joseph R. Sahid, New York (Joseph R. Sahid of counsel), for appellant.

Reitler Kailas & Rosenblatt LLC, New York (Brian D. Caplan of counsel), for respondent.

136 A.D.3d 416

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered on or about November 5, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a new plaintiff, and granted defendant's motion to dismiss causes of action in the amended complaint for fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive business practices under General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly denied plaintiff's motion to amend to the extent plaintiff sought to add Eye Consultants of Texas, P.A. (ECT) as a plaintiff. Defendant IO Practiceware Inc.'s (IO) contract with ECT had a forum-selection clause providing that the exclusive venue for any dispute between IO and ECT would be the district courts of Tarrant County, Texas, and that Texas law would apply. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate

24 N.Y.S.3d 280

that the enforcement of the forum-selection clause “ ‘would be unreasonable and unjust or that the clause is invalid because of fraud or overreaching, such that a trial in the contractual forum would be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of his or her day in court’ ” (Sterling Natl. Bank v. Eastern Shipping Worldwide, Inc., 35 A.D.3d 222, 222, 826 N.Y.S.2d 235 1st Dept.2006; Brooke Group v. JCH Syndicate 488, 87 N.Y.2d 530, 534, 640 N.Y.S.2d 479, 663 N.E.2d 635 1996 ).

With respect to...