Mayflower Restaurant Enterprises, Inc. v. Gulf Am. Corp. of Ariz.

• Decision Date: 27 May 1971
• Citation: 321 N.Y.S.2d 490,36 A.D.2d 941
• Parties: MAYFLOWER RESTAURANT ENTERPRISES, INC., and Lamay, Inc., Plaintiff-Respondents, v. GULF AMERICAN CORPORATION OF ARIZONA, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 490

321 N.Y.S.2d 490

36 A.D.2d 941

MAYFLOWER RESTAURANT ENTERPRISES, INC., and Lamay, Inc., Plaintiff-Respondents, v. GULF AMERICAN CORPORATION OF ARIZONA, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

May 27, 1971.

H. L. Bernstein, New York City, for plaintiffs-respondents.

E. N. Meyer, New York City, for defendant-appellant.

Before NUNEZ, J.P., and KUPFERMAN, McNALLY, TILZER and MACKEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 14, 1971, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, and the defendant's motion insofar as it seeks to dismiss the complaint on the ground of Forum non conveniens is granted. Appellant shall recover of respondents $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal.

The action herein is between foreign corporations. The parties are a Louisiana corporation and an Arizona corporation. The issues involved herein have little if any relationship or nexus with New York. Performance of the contract was not to take place in New York, and indeed, the contract involves certain services limited solely to Louisiana. We do not believe that New York is the appropriate place for trial of this action, and find that in the proper exercise of discretion the complaint herein should have been dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens. (See Jones v. United States Lines, Inc., 36 A.D.2d 601, 318 N.Y.S.2d 557; Aetna Insurance Co. v. Creole Petroleum Corp., 27 A.D.2d 518, 275 N.Y.S.2d 274, aff'd 23 N.Y.2d 717, 296 N.Y.S.2d 363, 244 N.E.2d 56; see also Bata v. Bata, 304 N.Y. 51, 105 N.E.2d 623.) Moreover, the circumstances as revealed in the record indicate that trial of this action in New York would result in hardship to the defendant and would constitute an unnecessary burden on the New York courts. It is to be noted that most of the witnesses are located in Louisiana. Furthermore, there is no valid explanation why the action cannot be maintained in a more appropriate jurisdiction, particularly Louisiana, where defendant is subject to suit and where the contract was to be performed.