bound by a forum selection clause in the absence of a certain relationship to either the contract containing the forum selection clause or the par F.Supp.2d 147, 160-61, 2012 WL 2856099, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. July 10, 2012) (finding that where signatory company and nonsignatory company shared officers and directors, agents, and a business address, the parties were closely related for purposes of applying a forum selection clause to the non-signatories); Great N. Ins. Co. v. Constab Polymer-Chemie GmbH & Co., No. Civ.A.01-882, 2007 WL 2891981, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2007) (finding that insurer-subrogee relationship allows for application of forum selection clause to non-signatory); Affiliated Mtg. Protection, LLC v. Tareen, No. Civ.A.06-4908, 2007 WL 203947, at *4 (D.N.J. Jan. 24, 2007) (<HOLDING>). Ultimately, “it is clear from these cases
holding the family court has jurisdiction to join third parties when property is alleged to be marital but is owned by a third party holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant holding defendant assumed risk that third party would consent to search of storage locker where defendant instructed third party to rent locker under third partys name and allowed third party to keep possession of lease papers and to occasionally retain the keys holding that where a third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract the forum selection clause applies to the third party holding no right to recover for economic loss resulting from defendants injury to a third party with whom plaintiff has contractual business relationship