cases such as Sacody Technologies, Inc. v. Avant, Inc., 862 F.Supp. 1152 (S.D.N.Y.1994), where the court had to determine whether venue was proper in the Southern District of New York in a dispute involving allegations that the defendant breached a confidentiality agreement. In breach of contract cases, courts “consider a number of factors, including where the contract was negotiated or executed, where it was to be performed, and where the alleged breach occurred.” Ci upp.2d 349, 364 (E.D.N.Y.2007) (“First, it is undisputed that negotiations regarding the Agreement were performed via telephone and written communication by Pontin and Sea Tow in Florida and in the Eastern District of New York, respectively. As such, the Court andreau & Rodger, P.C., 927 F.Supp. 731, 736 (S.D.N.Y.1996). (<HOLDING>); Club Vista Fin. Servs., LLC v. Maslon,
recognizing forum selection clause providing that no such claim shall be commenced prosecuted or continued in any forum other than the courts of the state of new york located in the city and county of new york or in the united states district court for the southern district of new york as clear and unambiguous expression of parties selection of exclusive forum in affirming district courts dismissal of action commenced in united states district court for the district of new jersey holding that if a modification petition is filed in a county where venue is appropriate it is improper to transfer the venue to another county merely because venue also would have been proper in the other county however once an enforcement proceeding is undertaken in an appropriate venue venue is improper in a different county over a subsequently filed petition to modify the decree which was the subject of the enforcement proceedings holding that venue was not proper in the southern district of new york where the plaintiff resided because the allegedly erroneous advice to file a case in new york that could result in a finding of civil contempt against the plaintiff originated from the defendants office in california holding that venue was improper in the southern district of new york because any extortion malpractice misrepresentation fraudcon spiracy unethical conduct or breach of fiduciary duty which defendants may have committed against plaintiffs would have been committed in pennsylvania or delaware where defendants reside and where they prepared for and litigated the underlying action and venue would be appropriate in a district in one of those states pursuant to 28 usc  1391a1 or 2 holding that venue in the district identified in  9 was mandatory