The motion court properly found that defendant Indian Hotels had consented to the jurisdiction of New York's courts since the guarantees executed by Indian Hotels, in addition to being payable in New York, clearly incorporate the terms of the underlying note which, in turn and with equal clarity, incorporates all of the terms of the Loan Agreement, including its consent to New York jurisdiction clause ( see, Dakota Gasification Co. v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 964 F.2d 732, 735, cert denied sub nom. Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Corp. v. Dakota Gasification Co., 506 U.S. 1048; Massachusetts Bonding Ins. Co. v. Feutz, 182 F.2d 752, 756-757). Further, Indian Hotels not only guaranteed repayment of the subject note, but also that repayment would be made in the manner set forth in the Loan Agreement. The guarantee of the repayment obligation expressly to be performed in New York was sufficient to confer personal jurisdiction upon appellant pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) (1) ( see, Skrabalak v. Rock, 208 A.D.2d 1100, 1102; A.I. Trade Fin. v. Petra Bank, 989 F.2d 76, 81; Lone Star Indus. v. Chieftain Cement Corp., 795 F. Supp. 87, 89-90).
Given defendants' consent to New York jurisdiction and their admitted default on unconditional instruments for the payment of money only, the motion court properly exercised its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens ( see, CPLR 327 [a]; Islamic Republic of Iran v. Pahlavi, 62 N.Y.2d 474, 478-479, cert denied 469 U.S. 1108).
Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Lerner, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.