Roman v. Sunshine Ranchettes, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 December 1983 |
| Parties | Enrique ROMAN, et al., Respondents, v. SUNSHINE RANCHETTES, INC., Appellant, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ciaravino & Smith, Freeport (Philip D. Jackson, Freeport, on brief), for appellant.
Herbert Kanon and Steven J. Mandel, New York City, for respondents.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and WEINSTEIN, BROWN and BOYERS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action, inter alia, for rescission of a real estate contract, Sunshine Ranchettes, Inc. appeals from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 12, 1983, as denied those branches of its motion which sought dismissal of the complaint as to it for lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens; and (2) an order of the same court, dated June 2, 1983, which granted plaintiffs' motion for an injunction prohibiting Sunshine Ranchettes, Inc. from prosecuting actions pending against plaintiffs in the Circuit Court, Putnam County, State of Florida.
Order dated April 12, 1983 affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Order dated June 2, 1983, reversed, as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and plaintiffs' motion for an injunction denied.
Appellant's objection to the exercise of jurisdiction over it is without basis. Its principal does not deny that at the time of the transaction in question, he resided in New York and engaged in corporate business from his home address. He met with plaintiffs numerous times in Brooklyn to discuss the contract and receive their payments. The contract was executed in New York. These contacts evidence "purposeful activity in New York directed toward and resulting in the establishment of a contractual relationship" (George Reiner & Co. v. Schwartz, 41 N.Y.2d 648, 654, 394 N.Y.S.2d 844, 363 N.E.2d 551), and are a sufficient basis for the exercise of jurisdiction under CPLR 302 (subd. [a], par. 1).
That branch of defendant's motion which sought dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens (CPLR 327) was likewise properly denied. In a motion based on CPLR 327, the burden is on the moving party to establish clearly that another jurisdiction is the more appropriate forum (Bader & Bader v. Ford, 66 A.D.2d 642, 414 N.Y.S.2d 132, app. dsmd. 48 N.Y.2d 649, 421 N.Y.S.2d 199, 396 N.E.2d 481). Appellant has not met this burden. Moreover, the same New York contacts which support jurisdiction establish the "substantial nexus" with this State that permits retention (Martin v. Mieth, 35 N.Y.2d 414, 418, 362 N.Y.S.2d 853, 321 N.E.2d 777).
However, the order which granted the motion for an injunction must be reversed....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schomann Intern. Corp. v. Northern Wireless, Ltd.
...of restaurant equipment "manifestly contemplated an ongoing relationship between the parties"); Roman v. Sunshine Ranchettes, Inc., 98 A.D.2d 744, 469 N.Y.S.2d 449, 450 (2d Dep't 1983). Thus, when viewed prospectively, the contract contemplated a continued business relationship between Defe......
-
Burrows Paper Corp. v. R.G. Engineering, Inc.
...of restaurant equipment "manifestly contemplated an ongoing relationship between the parties"); Roman v. Sunshine Ranchettes, Inc., 98 A.D.2d 744, 469 N.Y.S.2d 449 (N.Y.App. Div.2d Dep't 1983). Here, the contract at issue is the only transaction RG has ever entered into with Burrows. It req......
-
Creative Socio-Medics, Corp. v. City of Richmond, Civil Action No. 00-CV-6690.
...equipment in Arizona "manifestly contemplated an ongoing relationship between the parties"); Roman v. Sunshine Ranchettes, Inc., 98 A.D.2d 744, 744, 469 N.Y.S.2d 449, 450 (2d Dep't 1983). The Agreement provided that it would commence on June 15, 1998 and terminate on June 14, 2003. See Denn......
-
National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. Worley
...party seeking a change of forum must clearly establish that another jurisdiction is a more appropriate forum (Roman v. Sunshine Ranchettes Inc., 98 A.D.2d 744, 469 N.Y.S.2d 449). In addition, where a party to a contract has agreed in advance of litigation to submit to the jurisdiction of a ......