Hunt v. Landers, 309 A.D.2d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Hunt v. Landers, 309 A.D.2d 900 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roy Karon and Peddler LLC v. Elliott Aviation, James Mitchell, Wynn Elliott, Elliott Aviation Aircraft Sales, Inc., and Elliott Jets
Iowa · 2020 · confidence medium
Haig ed., 4th ed.), Westlaw (database updated Sept. 2019) (citing Hunt v. Landers, 766 N.Y.S.2d 384, 385 (App. Div. 2003); Hirschman v. Nat’l Textbook Co., 584 N.Y.S.2d 199, 200 (App. Div. 1992); British W.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Couvertier v. Concourse Rehabilitation & Nursing, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
This Court has upheld nonnegotiated forum selection clauses contained in various contracts even where the underlying action was a personal injury action or medical malpractice action (see Bernstein v Wysoki, 77 AD3d 241, 250 [2010]; Lischinskaya v Carnival Corp., 56 AD3d 116 , 118 [2008]; Hunt v Landers, 309 AD2d 900, 901 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Couvertier v. Concourse Rehabilitation & Nursing, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
This Court has upheld nonnegotiated forum selection clauses contained in various contracts even where the underlying action was a personal injury action or medical malpractice action (see Bernstein v Wysoki, 77 AD3d 241, 250 [2010]; Lischinskaya v Carnival Corp., 56 AD3d 116 , 118 [2008]; Hunt v Landers, 309 AD2d 900, 901 [2003]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fleet Capital Leasing/Global Vendor Finance v. Angiuli Motors, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Accordingly, Market Scan’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction should have been granted (see Hunt v Landers, 309 AD2d 900, 901 [2003]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Monica Hunt
v.
Richard Landers
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 27, 2003.
309 A.D.2d 900
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated January 24, 2003, as denied their motion to change venue from Kings County to Sullivan County.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from,[*901] on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Kings County, is directed to deliver to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Sullivan County, all papers filed in this action and certified copies of all minutes and entries (see CPLR 511 [d]).

The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants, inter alia, to rent canoes, which contained a clause providing that “[t]he Venue of any dispute that may arise out of this agreement or otherwise between the parties * * * shall be either the Town of Tusten, NY Justice Court or the County or State Supreme Court in Sullivan County.”

“[F]orum selection clauses are prima facie valid. * * * [T]o set aside such a clause, a party must show either that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust or that the clause is invalid because of fraud or overreaching, such that a trial in the forum set in the contract 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” (Hirschman v National Textbook Co., 184 AD2d 494, 495 [1992]; see Bremen v Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 US 1, 12-18 [1972]). Absent a showing that it should be set aside, a forum selection clause will control (Hirschman v National Textbook Co., supra; see Bremen v Zapata Off-Shore Co., supra at 12, 15). The plaintiff failed to make a sufficient showing that the clause was the product of overreaching or was unreasonable, or that its enforcement would be unjust (see Di Ruocco v Flamingo Beach Hotel & Casino, 163 AD2d 270, 272 [1990]). The plaintiff offered no valid ground for setting aside the forum selection clause. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion to transfer venue from Kings County to Sullivan County should have been granted. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.