Plaintiff was not relieved of its obligations to perform under the contract with defendant based on the "plant shutdown" language contained in the force majeure provision of the contract. Such force majeure clauses excuse non-performance only where the reasonable expectations of the parties have been frustrated due to circumstances beyond the control of the parties (see, Kel Kim Corp. v. Cent. Mkts., Inc., 70 N.Y.2d 900, 902; United Equities v. First Natl. City Bank, 52 A.D.2d 154, 157, affd 41 N.Y.2d 1032). Plaintiff shut down its plant voluntarily due to financial considerations brought about by environmental regulations. Those are not circumstances constituting a force majeure event, and financial hardship is not grounds for avoiding performance under a contract (see, 407 E. 61st Garage v. Savoy Fifth Ave. Corp., 23 N.Y.2d 275, 282; Matter of Coastal Power Production Co. v. New York State Pub. Serv. Commn., 153 A.D.2d 235, 240). Furthermore, plaintiff was fully aware of the environmental regulations, and the Environmental Protection Agency's intention to enforce them fully, prior to entering into the contract with defendant.
We modify only to declare in defendant's favor (see, Lanza v. Wagner, 11 N.Y.2d 317, 334).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.