| W.J. Deutsch & Sons, Ltd. v Charbaut Am., Inc. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09590 [57 AD3d 529] |
| December 2, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| W.J. Deutsch & Sons, Ltd., Respondent, v Charbaut America,Inc., Doing Business as Vranken America, et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Trachtenberg Rodes & Friedberg LLP, New York, N.Y. (Barry J. Friedberg of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action for a judgment declaring that the plaintiff has fulfilled its obligations to the defendantsunder a certain agreement between the parties, the defendants appeal from an order of the SupremeCourt, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered April 29, 2008, which denied their motion to dismissthe complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) on the basis of a forum selection agreement.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants' motion to dismissthe complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) on the basis of a forum selection agreement is granted.
The parties to a contract "may freely select a forum which will resolve any disputes over theinterpretation or performance of the contract. Such clauses are prima facie valid and enforceable unlessshown by the resisting party to be unreasonable" (Brooke Group v JCH Syndicate 488, 87NY2d 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]; LSPAEnter., Inc. v Jani-King of N.Y., Inc., 31 AD3d 394, 395 [2006]).[*2]
In this case, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, thedefendants met their burden of showing that the documentary evidence submitted conclusivelydemonstrates that the parties intended to submit disputes such as the instant one, arising from their"Termination Amendment to the Distributorship Contract of December 8, 1996, as Amended onFebruary 4, 2003," to resolution by the Tribunal de Commerce de Reims, in Reims, France (see AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v StateSt. Bank & Trust Co., 5 NY3d 582, 590-591 [2005]; M. Fund, Inc. v Carter, 31 AD3d 620, 621 [2006]; cf. CooperVision, Inc. v Intek Integration Tech.,Inc., 7 Misc 3d 592, 602 [2005]). The plaintiff does not contend that enforcement of theforum selection provision would be unreasonable. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have grantedthe defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Belen,JJ., concur.