JORGE S. CAMACHO, M.D., plfap, v. IO PRACTICEWARE, INC., def-res

89. JORGE S. CAMACHO, M.D., plfap, v. IO PRACTICEWARE, INC., def-res — Law Offices of Joseph R. Sahid, New York (Joseph R. Sahid of counsel), for ap — Reitler Kailas & Rosenblatt LLC, New York (Brian D. Caplan of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered on or about November 5, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to add a new plaintiff, and granted defendant's motion to dismiss causes of action in the amended complaint for fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive business practices under General Business Law §349, and unjust enrichment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

89. JORGE S. CAMACHO, M.D., plfap, v. IO PRACTICEWARE, INC., def-res — Law Offices of Joseph R. Sahid, New York (Joseph R. Sahid of counsel), for ap — Reitler Kailas & Rosenblatt LLC, New York (Brian D. Caplan of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered on or about November 5, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add a new plaintiff, and granted defendant’s motion to dismiss causes of action in the amended complaint for fraud, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive business practices under General Business Law §349, and unjust enrichment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court correctly denied plaintiff’s motion to amend to the extent plaintiff sought to add Eye Consultants of Texas, P.A. (ECT) as a plaintiff. Defendant IO Practiceware Inc.’s (IO) contract with ECT had a forum-selection clause providing that the exclusive venue for any dispute between IO and ECT would be the district courts of Tarrant County, Texas, and that Texas law would apply. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the enforcement of the forum-selection clause “‘would be unreasonable and unjust or that the clause is invalid because of fraud or overreaching, such that a trial in the contractual forum would be so gravely difficult and inconvenient that the challenging party would, for all practical purposes, be deprived of his or her day in court’” (Sterling Natl. Bank v. Eastern Shipping Worldwide, Inc., 35 AD3d 222, 222 [1st Dept 2006]; Brooke Group v. JCH Syndicate 488, 87 NY2d 530, 534 [1996]).

JORGE S. CAMACHO, M.D., plfap, v. IO PRACTICEWARE, INC., def-res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal