Notwithstanding, Special Term mistakenly interpreted Paragraph No. 32 of the contract, as barring both parties from bringing suit in New York, there is ample basis to warrant dismissing the complaint for the contract is governed by New Jersey law, was entered into in New Jersey by two New Jersey corporations and calls for performance of work on a building to be erected in that State. Thus, no substantial nexus with New York exists (see Martin v Mieth,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
JOSEPH L. MUSCARELLE, INC. v. FLUORO ELEC. CORP.
55 A.D.2d 526 (1976)
Joseph L. Muscarelle, Inc., Appellant, v. Fluoro Electric Corporation, Respondent, and Universal Container Corp., Defendant
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
December 2, 1976
December 2, 1976
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
- No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.
