In Horton v. Concerns of Police Survivors, 62 A.D.3d 836, 878 N.Y.S.2d 793 (2d Dept. 2009), lv. app. den. 13 N.Y.3d 706, 915 N.E.2d 1181, 887 N.Y.S.2d 3 (2009), the court confirmed the principles that: the parties to an agreement may freely select a forum that will resolve any disputes over the interpretation or performance of the contract; such a forum selection clause is prima facie valid and enforceable unless the challenging party demonstrates that a) it is unreasonable, unjust, in contravention of public policy, invalid due to fraud or overreaching; or b) trial in the selected forum would be so gravely difficult that the challenging party would effectively be deprived of its day in court. Id. at 836. The plaintiff in Horton argued that, because she was a single mother who resided with her teenage daughter in Dutchess County, New York, enforcement of the forum selection clause in her employment agreement that required disputes to be decided in the courts of the State of Missouri would be unjust. 62 A.D. 3d at 836-837. In light of the facts that: plaintiff offered no evidence that the cost of commencing a wrongful discharge action in Missouri would be so financially prohibitive that it would effectively deprive plaintiff of her day in court; plaintiff did not allege that the inclusion of a forum selection clause in her employment contract was the product of overreaching; plaintiff did not demonstrate that the clause in question was unconscionable, the court in Horton modified the lower court's order by granting defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint based on a forum selection clause. Id.