You are here: / / THE NOTE REQUIRED THE APPLICATION OF FLORIDA SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL...
,

THE NOTE REQUIRED THE APPLICATION OF FLORIDA SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL LAW TO THE “TERMS OF THE DOCUMENTS” BUT SPECIFICALLY CONTEMPLATED A SUIT IN EITHER NEW YORK OR FLORIDA; THEREFORE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE INTERPRETED THE CHOICE OF LAW PROVISIONS TO RULE OUT A NEW YORK LAWSUIT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the terms of the note which required the application of Florida law did not preclude bringing the action in New York. The language in the note indicated the parties intended suit to be brought either in New York or Florida:

[Supreme Court] stated in its decision that, “having elected to have the ‘procedur[al] laws of the State of Florida’ apply exclusively in this action, the [p]laintiff could not rely on any of the provisions of New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules in prosecuting this action.” The court relied on CPLR 101, which the court quoted in its decision as providing, in pertinent part, that ” ‘[t]he civil practice law and rules shall govern the procedure in civil judicial proceedings in all courts of the state and before all judges, except where the procedure is regulated by inconsistent statute’ ” … . The court … concluded that, due to the perceived conflict between the contractual choice-of-law provisions and CPLR 101, it could not grant the [plaintiff’s summary judgment] motion. * * *

“Contractual ‘[c]hoice of law provisions typically apply to only substantive issues’ ” … , although parties can agree otherwise. Here, the note provides that “[t]he terms” of the documents are to be governed by the substantive and procedural rules of Florida, but that does not establish that the rules of Florida were intended to govern the procedures of the New York State court system, which would effectively preclude any action on the note in New York. Indeed, the note itself provides that venue for any action related to the note may be in either “Onondaga County, New York or Broward County, Florida.” Thus, the parties anticipated that New York courts could and would be able to handle a judicial action related to the note … . Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC v Pasumbal, 2022 NY Slip Op 06334, Fourth Dept 11-10-22

Practice Point: The choice of law provisions in the note required the application of Florida substantive and procedural law to the “terms of the documents” and also stated suit could be brought in either New York or Florida. Supreme Court should not have interpreted the choice of law provisions to rule out a New York lawsuit.

 

You might also like
GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 17-105, NOT 17-101, APPLIES TO THE REVIVAL OF AN EXPIRED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE; THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS HERE DID NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF SECTION 17-105; FORECLOSURE WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).
SEARCH WARRANT WAS NOT BASED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE SOUGHT WOULD BE AT THE SEARCHED LOCATION, MOTION TO SUPPRESS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED AND INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED.
PRIVATE NUISANCE CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON LIGHTS AND NOISE FROM A STADIUM PROPERLY SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
General Question Whether Defendant Was “A Law Abiding Person” Violated Sandoval Ruling and Required Reversal.
THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST A FIRST-YEAR RESIDENT, WHO DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF HIS SUPERVISORS TO DISCONTINUE A MEDICATION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMSSED; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
SYNTHETIC MARIJUANA IS NOT “DANGEROUS CONTRABAND” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE “PROMOTING PRISON CONTRABAND” STATUTES (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED A TEENAGER WHO COMMITTED RACIALLY-MOTIVATED MASS MURDER WAS ADDICTED TO SOCIAL MEDIA CONTENT PRESENTING THE VIEW THAT WHITES ARE BEING REPLACED BY NON-WHITES; PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS WERE DEFECTIVELY DESIGNED TO BE ADDICTIVE; OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, THE DEFENDANT SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS WERE DEEMED IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THIRD-PARTY CONTENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE POLICE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE MAN IN A MOTEL ROOM (DEFENDANT) WAS A SUSPECT IN A SHOOTING; AN INFORMANT HAD TOLD THE POLICE THE MAN IN THE ROOM WAS FROM ROCHESTER, HIS NICKNAME WAS “JAY” AND HE “HAD A WARRANT;” WHEN THE MAN LEFT THE ROOM, THE POLICE STOPPED HIS TAXI; THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE STOP (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE TOWN CONTRACTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED;... THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD FOR REFILING A COMPLAINT AFTER DISMISSAL (CPLR 205(A))...