WARNACO INC. plf-res
- SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT
- Jan 31 2013 (Date Decided)
- Tom, J.P., Andrias, Acosta, Manzanet-Daniels, Román, JJ.
9142. WARNACO INC. plf-res, —AGAINST— TRIALAND S.A., defap Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP, New York (William A. Maher of counsel), for ap — Katten Muchin & Rosenman LLP, New York (Jonathan J. Faust of counsel), for res — ORDER, SUPREME COURT, NEW YORK COUNTY (ELLEN M. COIN, J.), ENTERED JUNE 1, 2012, WHICH, TO THE EXTENT APPEALED FROM AS LIMITED BY THE BRIEFS, DENIED DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE GROUNDS OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION, UNANIMOUSLY AFFIRMED, WITH COSTS. IN EVALUATING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THIS ACTION ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS GROUNDS, THE COURT PROPERLY CONSIDERED ALL RELEVANT FACTORS (see CPLR 327; see Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 NY2d 474, 479 , cert denied 469 US 1108 ), and concluded that New York was an appropriate forum for litigating this dispute over an agreement whereby defendant was permitted to distribute plaintiffs' goods throughout South America. Plaintiff Warnaco Inc. is a domiciliary of New York and, although defendant is a Uruguayan company and the distribution occurred exclusively in Latin America, the matter bears a substantial nexus to New York. The evidence indicates that the parties' relationship developed through meetings in New York prior to execution of their 2010 agreement, and that the agreement was allegedly terminated at a subsequent meeting in New York. Defendant failed to submit any affidavits of potential witnesses or specify any necessary documents whose appearance or production would be impossible or inconvenient in New York (see Firegreen Ltd. v. Claxton, 160 AD2d 409 [1st Dept 1990]). SIMILARLY, THE EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT VISITED NEW YORK ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS TO DISCUSS THE BUSINESS OF THE PARTIES' VENTURE SUPPORTS A FINDING THAT DEFENDANT'S CONTACTS WITH NEW YORK WERE SUFFICIENT TO CONFER JURISDICTION UNDER CPLR 302(A) (1) (see Fabrikant & Sons v. Adrianne Kahn, Inc., 144 AD2d 264 [1st Dept 1988]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, ACOSTA, MANZANET-DANIELS, ROMÁN, JJ. 9143-. IN RE COUMBA F., 9144pet-res, v. MAMDOU D., resres — Goetz L. Vilsaint, Bronx, for ap — New York Legal Assistance Group, New York (Alexandra Lewis-Reisen of counsel), for res — LAW OFFICE OF RANDALL S. CARMEL, SYOSSET (RANDALL S. CARMEL OF COUNSEL), ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD.—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered on or February 18, 2011, which, upon a finding of aggravating circumstances, and incorporating an order of protection entered on or about February 17, 2011, directed respondent father, for a period of five years, to stay away from petitioner and to refrain from communicating with her except with regard to the child, to refrain from committing any family offenses against petitioner and the child, and to attend anger management and domestic violence counseling, unanimously modified, on the facts, to direct respondent to complete the anger management and counseling courses within six months of the date of entry of this order, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
The finding of aggravating circumstances is supported by a preponderance of the evidence showing that the child was present during a number of violent incidents directed at petitioner (see Family Court Act §§827[a][vii]; 842; Matter of Kristine Z. v. Anthony C., 21 AD3d 1319, 1321 [4th Dept 2005], lv dismissed 6 NY3d 772 ). The evidence also shows that petitioner sustained a physical injury, i.e., pain and bruises after respondent struck her, and back pain for a month, for which she sought medical treatment (see Matter of Boua TT. v. Quamy UU., 66 AD3d 1165, 1166 [3rd Dept 2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 702 ).
Although respondent's violence was directed toward petitioner, it occurred a number of times in the presence of the child; thus the inclusion of the child in the order is warranted (see Family Court Act §827[a][vii]; Matter of Pei-Fong K. v. Myles M., 94 AD3d 675 [1st Dept 2012]; see also Matter of Charlene J.R. v. Walter A.M., 307 AD2d 1038 [2nd Dept 2003]). In addition, there is evidence that respondent acted violently toward the child. However, we note that the order permits court-ordered visitation and contact between respondent and the child, enabling respondent to maintain a relationship with the child.
The court properly ordered the father to attend anger management and domestic violence counseling. However, since it provided no deadline for the completion of the counseling, we modify as indicated.
This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.