### Unirea Shopping Ctr. S.A. v Adamescu 2024 NY Slip Op 31861(U) May 15, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 656050/2021 Judge: Mary V. Rosado Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip

Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New

York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication.NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 INDEX NO. 656050/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/16/2024 

### SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. MARY V. ROSADO Justice ---------------------------X

UNIREA SHOPPING CENTRE S.A., Plaintiff,

- V - CARMEN PALADE ADAMESCU, RANI PALADE ADAMESCU, TYCOON DEVELOPMENT, LLC Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------X PART 33M
INDEX NO. 656050/2021 MOTION DATE 03/10/2023 MOTION SEQ. NO. 003 DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 5, 6, 14, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 89 were read on this motion to/for DISM ACTION/INCONVENIENT FORUM Upon the foregoing documents, and after oral argument which occurred on October 24, 2023 with Katherine A. Skeele, Esq. appearing for Plaintiff Unirea Shopping Centre S.A. ("Plaintiff') and Diane Chan, Esq. appearing for Defendants Carmen Palade Adamescu ("Carmen"), Rani Palade Adamescu ("Rani") (together, the "IndividualDefendants") andTycoon Development, LLC ("Tycoon") (together with the Individual Defendants, "Defendants"), Defendants' March 10, 2023 motion for an Order dismissing this action with prejudice on the ground offorum non conveniens is denied. 

### I. Background and Procedural History Plaintiffis a Romaniancompanywithitsprincipalplace ofbusinessinBucharest, Romania (NYSCEF Doc. 60 at

### ,i 5). Plaintiffis "without a presence in the U.S. and all ofits representatives [are] located outside of the U.S." (NYSCEF Doc. 62 at 2). Defendant Carmen is a citizen of Romania and currently resides in Romania (NYSCEF Doc. 57 at 

### ,i 2). Carmen was a director of Plaintiff from 2002 until August 31, 2017 (NYSCEF Doc. 60 at ,i 11). Further, Carmen is the

656050/2021 UNIREA SHOPPING CENTRE S.A. vs. ADAMESCU, CARMEN PALADE ET AL Motion No. 003 1 of 6 Page 1 of6 

### [* 1]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 INDEX NO. 656050/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/16/2024

mother of Defendant Rani (Id.), and the stepmother of Bogdan Alexander Ademescu ("Alexander"), who is the current Chairman and CEO ofPlaintiff(NYSCEF Doc. 58 at

## ,r 2). Rani is a citizen ofRomania who currently resides in Greece (NYSCEF Doc. Id.). DefendantTycoon is aNew York Corporation (NYSCEF Doc. 57 at

## ,r 4). In 2012 Carmen and Rani created Defendant Tycoon for the sole purpose ofacquiring an apartment located at 845 United Nations Plaza, Unit 75D, New York, New York (the "Apartment") (Id.). Rani is the owner and sole member ofTycoon (Id.). Tycoon has no employees, no operations, and no offices, and its sole asset is the Apartment (Id. at

## ,r 5). Plaintiffcontends that Carmen was removed from her position as Chairman and CEO of Plaintiffbased on allegations that she caused Plaintiffto enter into multiple fraudulent contracts with shell companies that she controlled with Rani (NYSCEF Doc. 71 at 6-7). Through these fraudulent contracts, Plaintiff claims that Carmen embezzled millions of dollars from Plaintiff (NYSCEF Doc. 60 at

## ,r 58). Further, Defendants Carmen and Rani are currently the subjects ofan ongoing criminal investigation by the Prosecutor's Office at the Bucharest Tribunal in Romania for purportedly embezzling from and defrauding Plaintiff while Carmen was at the company (NYSCEF Doc. 14 at

## ,r,r 7, 15). On March 10, 2023, Defendants commenced the instant motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint on Forum Non Conveniens grounds (NYSCEF Doc. 55), arguing inter alia, that because neither Plaintiff nor Defendants Carmen and Rani reside in New York, the alleged embezzlement scheme took place in Romania, many key witnesses and documents are located in Romaniaor inthe possession ofthird-party Romanianprosecutors, and Romaniais an appropriate alternate forum, Plaintiffs action should be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds (NYSCEF Doc. 56 at 7).

656050/2021 UNIREA SHOPPING CENTRE S.A. vs. ADAMESCU, CARMEN PALADE ET AL Motion No. 003 2 of 6 Page 2 of 6 

### [* 2]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92

II. Discussion INDEX NO. 656050/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/16/2024

a. Standard for Dismissal on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds Pursuant to CPLR 327, a Court may stay or dismiss an action where it finds "that in the interest ofsubstantialjustice the action should be heard in another forum." The First Department has held that a movant seeking dismissal under the doctrine offorum non conveniens bears "a heavy burden ofestablishing that New York is an inconvenient forum and that a substantial nexus between New York and the action is lacking" (Elmaliach v Bank ofChina Ltd., 110 AD3d 192, 208 [1st Dept 2013]). In considering a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens the factors to be considered include "the burden on the New York Courts, the potential hardship to defendant[s], the fact that the transaction giving rise to the action occurred in a foreignjurisdiction, as well as the residence of the plaintiff' (K.T v Dash, 37 AD3d 107, 109 [1st Dept 2006]). The First Department has further held that "unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice offorum should rarely be disturbed" (Anagnostou v Stifel, 204 AD2d 61 [1st Dept 1994] citing (Waterways, Ltd. v Barclays BankPLC, 174 AD2d 324, 327 [1st Dept 1991]). Moreover, "[t]he fact that another forum may have a substantial interest in adjudicating an action is but one factor to be weighed" (Aon RiskServs. v Cusack, 102 AD3d 461,463 [1st Dept 2013]). In undertaking this inquiry, the Court is mindful ofits obligation to "take great care in assessing the adequacy ofa foreign forum, [and] notto impugnforeignjudicial systems merely becausethey
are different" (Wilson vpantas, 29 NY3d 1051, 1068 [2017]). b. Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint on Forum Non Conveniens Grounds is Denied While Defendants argue that each ofthe forum non conveniens factors support dismissal (NYSCEF Doc. 56 at 13), for the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Defendants have

656050/2021 UNIREA SHOPPING CENTRES.A. vs. ADAMESCU, CARMEN PALADE ET AL Motion No. 003
3 of 6 Page 3 of 6 

### [* 3]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 INDEX NO. 656050/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/16/2024

failed to meettheir heavy burden ofestablishing that NewYork is an inconvenient forum and that
a substantial nexus betweenNew York and the action is lacking. The First Department has held that where New York is the situs ofdisputed property as a result ofdefendants' intentional transportation ofthe property to NewYork, a substantial nexus to NewYorkexists as NewYorkhas avalid and compelling interestinresolvingthe claimsinvolving the possession and ownership ofthe property (Republic of Lebanon v Sotheby's, 167 AD2d 142, 144 [1st Dept 1990]). Here, the subject Apartment is located in New York (NYSCEF Doc. 57 at 

## ,r4), the purchase ofthe Apartmenttookplace in NewYork, and the purchasing entity, Tycoon, is
aNewYorkLLC. (NYSCEFDoc. 6 at 3). Inlightofthe foregoing, the Courtfinds thatDefendants have failed to meet their heavy burden ofdemonstrating that a substantial nexus between New York and the action is lacking. While Defendants contend that the potential need to apply Romanian law to resolve this action weighs in favor ofdismissal (NYSCEF Doc. 56 at 21), the First Department has held that where a "caseinvolves only one foreignjurisdiction'slaw," as is the case here, the burden onNew York courts is diminished (Wilson v Dantas, 128 AD3d 176, 187 [1st Dept 2015]). The First Department has further held that application by New York courts offoreign laws do not impose "anunnecessary burdenupon ourjudiciary since our courts are frequently calleduponto apply the laws offoreignjurisdictions" (lntertec Contr. A/SIv Turner Steiner Int 'l, 6 AD3d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2004]).Further, while Defendants Carmen and Rani do not reside in New York, Rani is the sole
owner and member ofTycoon, which was the Plaintiffin a New York Supreme Court action to recover unpaid rent onthe Apartment (see Tycoon Development, LLCv. Weston CapitalServices, LtdandJohn R. Liegey, Index No. 153662/2021 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty.). This previous lawsuit

656050/2021 UNIREA SHOPPING CENTRES.A. vs. ADAMESCU, CARMEN PALADE ET AL Motion No. 003 4 of 6 Page 4 of 6 

### [* 4]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 INDEX NO. 656050/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/16/2024

is evidence that Rani and Tycoon have been conducting business and entering contracts in New York. Accordingly, no undue hardship canbe found with respecttoDefendantsRani and Tycoon. See Wilson v. Dantas, 128 A.D.3d 176, 187-88 (1st Dep't 2015) (holding that no undue hardship to defendants existwhere the defendants "enteredNewYorkto transactbusiness and continuedto have contacts with New York entities during the performance of.
..contracts."). Although a substantial amount ofevidence and witnesses may reside in Romania, as the Apartment is New York property, any prejudice to Defendants does not outweigh New York's interest in resolving claims involving the possession and ownership ofthe Apartment. In light of theforegoing, the Courtfinds thatthebalance oftheinterests does not so strongly favor defendants
so as tojustify disturbing Plaintiff's choice offorum in this action. 1 Accordingly, itis hereby, ORDERED that Defendants Carmen Palade Adamescu, Rani Palade Adamescu and Tycoon Development, LLC's March 10, 2023 motion for an Order dismissing this action with prejudice on the ground offorum non conveniens is denied; and itis further ORDERED that on orbefore June 25, 2024, the parties are directed to submit a proposed Status Conference Ordertothe Courtviae-mail to SFC-Part33-Clerk@nycourts.gov. Ifthe parties
are unable to agree to a proposed Status Conference Order, the parties are directed to appear for
an in-person status conference with the Court in Room 442, 60 Centre Street, on June 26, 2024 at 9:30 a.m.; and itis further ORDERED that within ten days of entry, counsel for PlaintiffUnirea Shopping Centre S.A. shall serve a copy ofthisDecision and Order, with notice ofentry, on all partiestothis action; and it is further

1 Findingthat the balance ofthe interests does not sufficiently favor Defendants tojustify disturbing Plaintiff's choice offorum in this action, the Court need not considerthe availability ofan alternative forum.

656050/2021 UNIREA SHOPPING CENTRES.A. vs. ADAMESCU, CARMEN PALADE ET AL Motion No. 003
5 of 6 Page 5 of 6 

### [* 5]NYSCEF DOC. NO. 92 INDEX NO. 656050/2021 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/16/2024

ORDERED thatthe Clerk ofthe Court is directed to enterjudgment accordingly. This constitutes the Decision and Order ofthe Court.

5/15/2024

DATE CHECK ONE:

APPLICATION: CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: CASE DISPOSED GRANTED SETTLE ORDER 

# IJ DENIED

INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN 

## th~ V ~...,Jr 

### JSt. HOi. MARY V. ROSADO, J.S.C.

x NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED IN PART SUBMIT ORDER FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT

## □ OTHER

### □ REFERENCE

656050/2021 UNIREA SHOPPING CENTRE S.A. vs. ADAMESCU, CARMEN PALADE ET AL Motion No. 003 Page 6 of 6
6 of 6 

### [* 6]