maritime contract and since the charter party contains an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in New York, with awards to be confirmable by a court with maritime jurisdiction in New York; therefore, defendant has made the showing required under 9 U.S.C. § 9 for an application for an order confirming the arbitration award, and plaintiffs would have to meet the standards laid down in 9 U.S.C. § 10 in order to vacate the award. Defendant contends that pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 202 ,the award is governed by the Convention rather than the Act, since the underlying relationship between the parties is commercial and since one of the parties is a foreign corporation. See Anteo Shipping Co. v. Siderman S.p.A., 417 F.Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y.1976), aff’d in open court, 553 F.2d 94 (2d Cir. 1977) (<HOLDING>). The Second Circuit has more recently noted,
holding that a financial guaranty payable in new york is a contract to perform services in new york subjecting foreign guarantor to jurisdiction under  302a1 holding convention applicable in prearbitration dispute between two foreign corporations where the arbitration was to take place in new york holding that a divorce granted at a foreign consulate in new york was not valid for immigration purposes because it did not comply with new york law holding that new york convention governed award rendered in the united states that arose out of dispute involving two nondomestic parties and one united states corporation holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york