Mollendo Equipment Co. v. Sekisan Trading Co.
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- American BankNote Corp. v. Daniele (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- P.T. Delami Garment Industries v. di Torino (New York Supreme Court 1994)
- Barcelona Hotel, Ltd. v. Hadlow (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- Obex Trading Corp. v. Maraven (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1979)
- Epstein v. Sirivejkul (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1978)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Memorandum.
Order affirmed, with costs. As the pleadings and affidavits were framed, the Appellate Division was entitled to find, as it did, that New York is an inconvenient forum for this litigation. It would also have been entitled to find otherwise, especially since any forum would have been inconvenient for court and parties. But the Appellate Division has been granted considerable discretion in this area, and, on the record made by the parties, it cannot be said that the discretion was abused as a matter of law (Irrigation & Ind. Dev. Corp. v IndagS. A., 37 NY2d 522, 525).
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.