Prenuptial Forum Selection Clauses Do Not Supply Jurisdiction for Non-Agreement Claims; Estate-Centered Claims May Be Dismissed on Forum Non Conveniens

Comprehensive Commentary on Lesavoy v. Brady, 2025 NY Slip Op 05511 (2d Dep’t Oct. 8, 2025)

Introduction

Lesavoy v. Brady is a Second Department decision that clarifies the limits of New York courts’ authority over out-of-state estate disputes involving a New York prenuptial agreement. The plaintiff (Nina Lesavoy) sued the Georgia administrators of her late husband’s estate (Charles W. Brady) in New York, asserting five contract- and property-based claims, later amended to add a sixth for attorneys’ fees. The claims fell into three buckets: (1) enforcement of three Georgia-executed promissory notes; (2) return of personal property located in Georgia; and (3) enforcement of a prenuptial agreement’s provisions concerning tax information and related attorneys’ fees. The plaintiff invoked a forum selection clause in the prenuptial agreement designating New York courts as the exclusive forum, conditional on at least one party residing in New York.

The core issues were whether New York courts had personal jurisdiction over the Georgia administrators for claims tied to Georgia instruments and property, whether New York’s long-arm statute could reach the defendants based on New York-related contract language, whether the prenuptial agreement’s forum selection clause could pull unrelated promissory note claims into New York, and whether, even for agreement-based claims, New York was an appropriate forum given the heavy Georgia center of gravity.

Summary of the Opinion

The Second Department affirmed dismissal of all claims. For the first four causes of action (the promissory notes and return of personal property), the court held there was no personal jurisdiction:

• General jurisdiction under CPLR 301 did not exist because the decedent was domiciled in Georgia; ownership of property in New York and an inapplicable “doing business” test for individuals do not confer general jurisdiction.
• Specific jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1) was lacking because the claims did not “arise from” in-state transactions; the notes were executed in Georgia, and their New York choice-of-law provisions were insufficient to create an “articulable nexus” with New York. The property claim had no New York nexus at all.
• The prenuptial agreement’s forum selection clause did not apply to those claims because they did not arise out of the prenuptial agreement, and Article X(4) of the agreement only set internal treatment of debts between the spouses, not enforcement of separate promissory notes.

For the fifth and sixth causes of action (the prenuptial agreement’s tax-information provision and attorneys’ fees), the court affirmed dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds under CPLR 327(a). The court emphasized Georgia’s dominance as the situs of the actionable events, the location of evidence, the pendency of probate there, the residency of the administrators and decedent, and the ready availability of Georgia as an alternative forum. The court also affirmed denial, as academic, of the plaintiff’s cross-motion to deem affidavits of service timely filed nunc pro tunc.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The opinion weaves together settled jurisdictional principles to dispose of a multi-claim, multi-forum dispute:

• Burdens and standard on a CPLR 3211(a)(8) motion: The plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving jurisdiction, but need only make a prima facie showing to defeat dismissal. The court accepts the plaintiff’s factual assertions as true and resolves doubts in her favor (Fanelli v Latman, 202 AD3d 758; Aybar v US Tires & Wheels of Queens, LLC, 211 AD3d 40; Nick v Schneider, 150 AD3d 1250).
• General jurisdiction (CPLR 301): The common-law bases remain physical presence, domicile, or consent (Pichardo v Zayas, 122 AD3d 699; Matter of Nilsa B. B. v Clyde Blackwell H., 84 AD2d 295). Domicile—not mere residence—controls (Matter of Newcomb, 192 NY 238; Laufer v Hauge, 140 AD2d 671), and only one domicile exists. If the defendant is not domiciled in New York when suit commences, general jurisdiction fails (Keane v Kamin, 94 NY2d 263; Chen v Guo Liang Lu, 144 AD3d 735). Importantly, the “doing business” test does not apply to individuals (Pichardo), and mere New York property ownership does not confer general jurisdiction over the individual or estate administrators (Chen; King v Car Rentals, Inc., 29 AD3d 205; see also Vaval v Stanco, LLC, 219 AD3d 1466).
• Long-arm jurisdiction (CPLR 302[a][1]): Two prongs must be satisfied—transacting business in New York and an articulable nexus between that activity and the claim (Law Off. of Cary Scott Goldinger, P.C. v Deluca, 219 AD3d 598; Leuthner v Homewood Suites by Hilton, 151 AD3d 1042). A New York choice-of-law clause in contracts executed elsewhere does not, without more, establish the requisite nexus (Shalik v Coleman, 111 AD3d 816, 818).
• Forum selection clauses: They apply to claims “arising out of” the contract containing the clause. If a claim does not arise from the agreement, the clause cannot manufacture jurisdiction or venue (Couvertier v Concourse Rehabilitation & Nursing, Inc., 117 AD3d 772, 773).
• Forum non conveniens (CPLR 327[a]): Courts weigh the residency of parties, hardship to witnesses, availability of an alternative forum, location of events and evidence, and burdens on New York courts (Wild v University of Pa., 115 AD3d 944; Fertco v Jhashi, 213 AD3d 963; Matter of OxyContin II, 76 AD3d 1019). The ruling is discretionary and will not be disturbed absent an abuse or failure to consider relevant factors (Chang Jin Park v Cho, 153 AD3d 1311; Turay v Beam Bros. Trucking Inc., 61 AD3d 964).

These authorities guided the court to a two-track outcome: jurisdictional dismissal for non-agreement claims and discretionary dismissal for agreement-based claims with a dominant Georgia nexus.

Legal Reasoning

1) General jurisdiction was unavailable. The decedent was domiciled in Georgia at death; the administrators likewise resided in Georgia. Under CPLR 301, New York courts lacked general jurisdiction. The court underscored two guardrails:

• There is no “doing business” test for individuals under CPLR 301; that rubric is for corporate defendants. The plaintiff’s attempt to import it for an individual estate failed.
• Ownership of New York real property, without more, does not establish general jurisdiction over an individual or, by extension, the estate administrators sued in their fiduciary capacities.

2) Specific jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1) was also lacking. Although the decedent had transacted some business in New York generally, the claims must arise from the in-state transaction. They did not:

• Promissory notes: Two notes had New York choice-of-law clauses, but all three were executed in Georgia. A choice-of-law clause does not create specific jurisdiction. The plaintiff could not show an articulable nexus between any in-state activity and the note obligations.
• Personal property: The property was allegedly in the decedent’s Georgia home; the situs and events were wholly in Georgia.

3) The prenuptial agreement’s forum selection clause could not bootstrap unrelated claims into New York. The court carefully parsed the agreement:

• Article X(4) dealt with how the spouses would treat debts between themselves; it did not transform separate promissory notes into “agreement claims.”
• Because the first four causes of action did not “arise out of” the agreement, the forum selection clause in the agreement did not apply to them.

4) Forum non conveniens warranted dismissal of the agreement-based claims. For the fifth cause of action (alleged breach of the tax information provision) and the sixth (attorneys’ fees tied to the breach), the court found:

• Georgia is an available alternative forum.
• The decedent died in Georgia; probate is in Georgia; the administrators are Georgia residents.
• Documents and witnesses relating to the 2019 tax filing decisions and estate administration are in Georgia.
• The events giving rise to the dispute centered in Georgia, and trying the case in New York would burden New York courts disproportionately.

The court therefore affirmed dismissal under CPLR 327(a), even in the face of plaintiff’s reliance on the agreement’s forum selection clause, implicitly signaling that a clause will not invariably control the forum analysis where the claims and evidence are overwhelmingly out-of-state and the clause’s applicability or reach is limited.

5) The cross-motion to deem service affidavits timely filed nunc pro tunc was denied as academic. With all claims dismissed, any defect or cure relating to service filings no longer mattered.

Impact and Practical Implications

This decision reinforces several practical rules that will influence future litigation strategy:

• Forum selection limits in prenups: A prenuptial agreement’s forum selection clause cannot be used to haul unrelated claims—like separate promissory notes executed in another state or a replevin claim for out-of-state property—into New York. Drafters should not assume an agreement’s forum clause will envelop all financial disputes between spouses or their estates. To expand reach, clauses would need to be drafted to expressly cover successors/representatives and “related” disputes; even then, the “arising out of” requirement will loom large.
• Choice of law vs. jurisdiction: A New York choice-of-law clause in a contract executed outside New York does not create personal jurisdiction. Parties seeking New York litigation should include explicit New York forum selection and consent-to-jurisdiction provisions in the instruments they intend to enforce—not just choice-of-law.
• Individuals and general jurisdiction: Plaintiffs cannot rely on a “doing business” theory to obtain general jurisdiction over individuals under CPLR 301, nor is property ownership alone sufficient. For estate disputes, domicile at death and the locus of administration will usually control.
• Forum non conveniens and estate matters: Courts remain receptive to dismissing contract claims tied to estate administration on forum non conveniens grounds when the events, documents, and fiduciaries are in the decedent’s domicile. Even when New York jurisdiction arguably exists or is consented to in some fashion, the discretionary 327(a) analysis can still carry the day when New York’s connection is attenuated.
• Estate administrators as defendants: Suing fiduciaries in New York requires special attention to jurisdictional hooks. Their residency, the situs of estate assets and records, and the probate court’s location weigh heavily. Plaintiffs should expect a forum non conveniens challenge if they choose a forum far from the administration.
• Litigation planning for cross-border notes: If cross-border promissory notes are intended to be litigated in New York, the notes themselves should include New York forum selection and explicit consent to New York jurisdiction. Relying on an unrelated spousal agreement’s forum clause is unlikely to work.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Domicile vs. residence: Domicile is your one “true home”—where you intend to return. You can have multiple residences, but only one domicile. General jurisdiction over an individual is typically tied to domicile.
• General vs. specific personal jurisdiction: General jurisdiction (CPLR 301) allows suit on any claim, but is limited for individuals to domicile, presence, or consent. Specific jurisdiction (CPLR 302) allows suit on claims that arise from the defendant’s in-state activities—there must be a substantial connection between New York activity and the claim.
• Choice-of-law vs. forum selection: Choice-of-law chooses which state’s law governs; forum selection chooses where disputes will be litigated. A choice-of-law clause does not equal consent to be sued in that state.
• “Arising from” or “articulable nexus”: For long-arm jurisdiction, it is not enough that the defendant did some business in New York; the claim must be substantially connected to that business.
• Forum non conveniens: Even if a court has power to hear a case, it may dismiss if another forum is plainly more suitable, considering where the parties and witnesses are, where the events occurred, where the documents are, and court burdens.
• Nunc pro tunc: Latin for “now for then.” Courts sometimes permit late filings to be deemed timely. But if a case is dismissed on other grounds, any request to fix late filings becomes moot.

Notable Nuances

• Conditional forum clause: The prenuptial clause was conditioned on at least one party residing in New York. The opinion did not undertake an extended analysis of that condition as to the agreement-based claims; it proceeded to forum non conveniens. The takeaway is that even where a party invokes a New York forum clause in a prenuptial agreement, courts may still dismiss under CPLR 327(a) when the decedent’s domicile and estate administration lie elsewhere and the dispute is predominantly out-of-state.
• Administrators as non-signatories: While estates are often bound by decedents’ contracts, enforcement of forum clauses against fiduciaries may present additional issues (scope, “arising out of,” and fairness). Here, the court avoided those complexities by finding the promissory note claims not governed by the prenup and dismissing the prenup claims on forum non conveniens grounds.

What Would Have Changed the Outcome?

• Promissory notes containing explicit New York forum selection and consent to jurisdiction could have supported CPLR 302(a)(1) or provided a separate contractual basis to keep those claims in New York.
• A broader, carefully drafted prenuptial forum clause expressly covering successors and “all disputes between the parties and their estates arising out of or relating to their financial dealings” might have strengthened the argument for New York as the forum, although the court could still consider forum non conveniens if Georgia’s ties dominate.
• Demonstrating that key events, witnesses, or evidence for the tax-information claim were in New York could have blunted CPLR 327(a) and supported keeping agreement-based claims in New York.

Conclusion

Lesavoy v. Brady solidifies three critical propositions: (1) New York courts will not assert general jurisdiction over out-of-state individuals or their estates based on property ownership or a corporate-style “doing business” test; domicile controls. (2) New York’s long-arm jurisdiction requires a substantial, claim-specific link to in-state activity; a choice-of-law clause in an out-of-state contract will not supply that link. (3) A prenuptial agreement’s forum clause cannot be used to corral unrelated claims into New York, and even agreement-based claims may be dismissed on forum non conveniens where the decedent’s domicile, probate, witnesses, and documents overwhelmingly lie in another state.

For practitioners, the decision is a cautionary roadmap: align forum selection and consent-to-jurisdiction provisions with the specific instruments to be enforced; do not conflate choice-of-law with jurisdiction; anticipate forum non conveniens in estate-focused litigation with strong out-of-state ties; and draft prenuptial clauses with precision regarding scope, successors, and the types of disputes covered. In the broader legal landscape, the opinion reinforces New York’s disciplined approach to personal jurisdiction and forum management, particularly in cross-border estate and marital agreement disputes.