green
Positive treatment
Issue: contractual forum selection clauseNY ↗
Issue: forum selection clauseNY ↗
28.8 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, 2007–2021↓ Fading ·
…a contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be s…
at p. 395
✓
Topic ↗
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases↓ Fading ·
…prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging…
at p. 395
✓
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Doyle v. P.A. Sports Authenticator
Contractual forum selection clauses are " 'prima facie valid and enforceable unless . . . shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court' " ( Creative Mobile Tech., LLC v Smart Modular Tech., Inc. , 97 AD3d 626 , 626 [2012], quoting LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc. , 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]; see Somerset Fine Home Bldg., Inc. v …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Puleo v. Shore View Center for Rehabilitation & Health Care
Brown Assoc., Inc., 72 AD3d 650, 651 [2010], quoting LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]; see Casale v Sheepshead Nursing & Rehabilitation Ctr., 131 AD3d 436 [2015]; Molino v Sagamore, 105 AD3d 922, 923 [2013]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Karlsberg v. Hunter Mountain Ski Bowl, Inc.
Brown Assoc., Inc., 72 AD3d 650, 651 [2010]; LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Casale v. Sheepshead Nursing & Rehabilitation Center
We reverse. “ ‘A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid *437 and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court’ ” (Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d 735, 736 [2007], quoting LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]; see U.S. Mdse., Inc. v L&R Distribs., Inc.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
U.S. Merchandise, Inc. v. L&R Distributors, Inc.
A forum selection clause is “prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court” (LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]; see Harry Casper, Inc. v Pines Assoc., L.P., 53 AD3d 764, 765 [2008]; Fleet Capital Leasing/Global Vendor Fin. v Angiuli Motors, Inc., 15 AD3d…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
U.S. Merchandise, Inc. v. L&R Distributors, Inc.
A forum selection clause is “prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court” (LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]; see Harry Casper, Inc. v Pines Assoc., L.P., 53 AD3d 764, 765 [2008]; Fleet Capital Leasing/Global Vendor Fin. v Angiuli Motors, Inc., 15 AD3d…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bhonlay v. Raquette Lake Camps, Inc.
While there is evidence that it would be inconvenient for plaintiff and his witnesses to travel to Fulton County for trial, it cannot be said that “the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that [plaintiff] would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of [his] day in court” (LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2d Dept 2006]; see also Horton v Concerns of Police Survivors, Inc., 62 AD3d 836 [2d Dept 2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 706 [2009]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Molino v. Sagamore
Brown Assoc., Inc., 72 AD3d 650, 651 [2010], quoting LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Molino v. Sagamore
Brown Assoc., Inc., 72 AD3d 650, 651 [2010], quoting LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
May v. US HIFU, LLC
The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the agreement was prima facie valid and enforceable, since the plaintiff did not demonstrate that it was “ ‘unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or . . . that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court’ ” (Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d 735, 736 [2007], quoting LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]; see Harry Casper, Inc. v Pines Assoc., L.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
May v. US HIFU, LLC
The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the agreement was prima facie valid and enforceable, since the plaintiff did not demonstrate that it was “ ‘unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or . . . that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court’ ” (Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d 735, 736 [2007], quoting LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]; see Harry Casper, Inc. v Pines Assoc., L.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Oak Street Printery, LLC v. Fujifilm North America Corp.
Youngdahl & Co., 418 Pa. 122 , 209 A.2d 810, 816 (Pa.1965)) ("[A] court in which venue is proper and which has jurisdiction should decline to proceed with the case when the parties have freely agreed that litigation shall be conducted in another forum and where such agreement is not unreasonable at the time of litigation.”); Horton v. Concerns of Police Survivors, Inc., 62 A.D.3d 836 , 878 N.Y.S.2d 793, 794 (N.Y.App.Div.2009) (citing LSPA Enter., Inc. v. Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 A.D.3d 394 , 817 N.Y.S.2d 657, 658 (N.Y.App.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Creative Mobile Technologies, LLC v. Smart Modular Technologies, Inc.
“A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court” (LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]; see Adler v 20/20 Cos., 82 AD3d 918, 919 [2011]; Bernstein v Wysoki, 77 AD3d 241, 248-249 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Creative Mobile Technologies, LLC v. Smart Modular Technologies, Inc.
“A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court” (LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]; see Adler v 20/20 Cos., 82 AD3d 918, 919 [2011]; Bernstein v Wysoki, 77 AD3d 241, 248-249 [2010]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Adler v. 20/20 Companies
“Such a forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable ‘unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected fomm would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court’ (LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]; see Harry Casper, Inc. v Pines Assoc., L.P., 53 AD3d 764, 765 [2008]; Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d 735 [2007]; Fleet Capital L…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Full House Entertainment, Inc. v. Auto Life RX
“A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court.” (LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]; accord Bernstein v Wysoki, 77 AD3d 241 [2010]; Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d 735, 736 [2007]; see also Brooke Group v JCH…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bernstein v. Wysoki
Discussion “ ‘A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court’ ” (Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d 735, 736 [2007], quoting LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]; see Harry Casper, Inc. v Pines Assoc., L.P., 53 …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
KMK Safety Consulting, LLC v. Jeffrey M. Brown Associates, Inc.
(2×)
“A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court” (LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]; see Boss v American Express Fin.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Horton v. Concerns of Police Survivors, Inc.
Such a forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable “unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court” (LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]; see Harry Casper, Inc. v Pines Assoc., L.P., 53 AD3d 764, 765 [2008]; Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d 735 [2007]; Fleet Capital Lea…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
W.J. Deutsch & Sons, Ltd. v. Charbaut America, Inc.
Such clauses are prima facie valid and enforceable unless shown by the resisting party to be unreasonable” (Brooke Group v JCH Syndicate 488, 87 NY2d 530, 534 [1996], citing The Bremen v Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 US 1 [1972]; see Harry Casper, Inc. v Pines Assoc., L.P., 53 AD3d 764, 764-765 [2008]; Stravalle v Land Cargo, Inc., 39 AD3d 735, 736 [2007]; LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harry Casper, Inc. v. Pines Associates, L.P.
Although plaintiff made general allegations that the option agreement is invalid due to fraud, it has not specifically alleged that the clause at issue was the result of fraud or overreaching (see LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]; Bell Constructors v Evergreen Caissons, 236 AD2d 859, 860 [1997]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arbor Commercial Mortgage, LLC v. Martinson
“A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or over reaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court.” (LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2d Dept 2006]; see also Brooke Group v JCH Syndicate 488, 87 NY2d 530 [1996]; Boss v American Express Fin.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stravalle v. Land Cargo, Inc.
“A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court” (LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of NY., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]; see Brooke Group v JCH Syndicate 488, 87 NY2d 530, 534 [1996]; Best Cheese Corp. v All-Ways Forwarding Int’l.
discussed
Cited "see"
Sherrod v. Mount Sinai St. Luke's
"Such clauses are prima facie valid and enforceable unless shown by the resisting party to be unreasonable" ( Brooke Group v JCH Syndicate 488 , 87 NY2d at 534 ; see LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc. , 31 AD3d 394, 395 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fora Fin. Warehouse, LLC v. PMGL LLC
Such a forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court" ( see Horton v Concerns of Police Survivors, Inc., 62 AD3d 836, 836 [2d Dept 2009] [internal citations omitted]; see also , LSPA Enter., Inc. v Jani-King of NY, Inc., 31 AD3d 394 [2d Dept 2006]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
LSPA Enterprise, Inc.
v.
Jani-King of New York, Inc.
v.
Jani-King of New York, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 5, 2006.
Cited by 33 opinions | Published
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), entered August 10, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2) to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
[*395] Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiffs entered into a franchise agreement with the defendant, Jani-King of New York, Inc. (hereinafter Jani-King), a Texas corporation. Jani-King was in the business of operating and franchising professional cleaning and maintenance services companies. Under the franchise agreement, the plaintiffs would establish and operate a Jani-King franchise within a designated area of New York State using Jani-King methods, procedures and products. Regarding the litigation of any disputes between the parties, the franchise agreement, inter alia, contained a forum selection clause providing that “jurisdiction and venue is declared to be exclusively in Dallas County, in the State of Texas.”
The plaintiffs commenced this action alleging, inter alia, breach of contract and fraud in the inducement. Jani-King moved to dismiss the action on the ground that it was improperly brought in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, since the parties agreed that Dallas County, Texas, would be the exclusive jurisdiction and venue for any disputes between them. The Supreme Court granted the motion. We affirm.
A contractual forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless it is shown by the challenging party to be unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching, or it is shown that a trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of its day in court (see Brooke Group v JCH Syndicate 488, 87 NY2d 530, 534 [1996]; Best Cheese Corp. v All-Ways Forwarding Int’l. Inc., 24 AD3d 580, 581 [2005]; Fleet Capital Leasing/Global Vendor Fin. v Angiuli Motors, Inc., 15 AD3d 535, 536 [2005]; Premium Risk Group v Legion Ins. Co., 294 AD2d 345, 346 [2002]). The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the subject clause was invalid for any of these reasons. Moreover, their contention that the forum selection clause is unenforceable merely because the complaint alleges fraud is without merit (see Scherk v Alberto-Culver Co., 417 US 506, 519 [1974]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted Jani-King’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (2).
The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Rivera, Skelos and Dillon, JJ., concur.