Case Name: Honeywell International Inc., Appellant, v. ARC Energy Services, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2017-07-13
Citations: 152 A.D.3d 444
Docket Number: 
Parties: Honeywell International Inc., Appellant, v ARC Energy Services, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.
Judges: Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Webber, Kahn and Kern, JJ.
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 152
Pages: 444–444

Head Matter:
Honeywell International Inc., Appellant, v ARC Energy Services, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant.
[55 NYS3d 658]—

Opinion:
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered July 8, 2016, which granted defendant ARC Energy Services, Inc.'s (ARC) motion to dismiss the complaint as against it on the ground of forum non conveniens, and order, same court and Justice, entered December 27, 2016, which upon granting leave to reargue, adhered to the July 8, 2016 decision, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion to dismiss denied.
Plaintiff and defendant ARC entered into a services agreement which included an explicit choice of law and forum provision selecting New York law and New York courts. Supreme Court erred in considering ARC's forum non conveniens argument.
"[W]here a party to a contract has agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of a court, that party is precluded from attacking the court's jurisdiction on forum non conveniens grounds" (Sterling Natl. Bank v Eastern Shipping Worldwide, Inc., 35 AD3d 222, 223 [1st Dept 2006]; see also National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v Worley, 257 AD2d 228, 232 [1st Dept 1999]). Moreover, the services agreement satisfied the requirements of New York General Obligations Law § 5-1401 and 5-1402, and therefore, the court did not have discretion under CPLR 327 (b) to consider the forum non conveniens argument.
Concur— Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Webber, Kahn and Kern, JJ.