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 "Individual Defendants") and Tycoon 

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 of forum non conveniens is denied. 

I. Background and Procedural History 

Plaintiff is a Romanian company with its principal place of business in Bucharest, Romania 

(NYSCEF Doc. 60 at ,i 5). Plaintiff is "without a presence in the U.S. and all of its 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 of Plaintiff (NYSCEF Doc. 58 at ,r 2). Rani 

is a citizen of Romania who currently resides in Greece (NYSCEF Doc. Id.). 

Defendant Tycoon is a New York Corporation (NYSCEF Doc. 57 at ,r 4). In 2012 Carmen 

and Rani created Defendant Tycoon for the sole purpose of acquiring an apartment located at 845 

United Nations Plaza, Unit 75D, New York, New York (the "Apartment") (Id.). Rani is the owner 

and sole member of Tycoon (Id.). Tycoon has no employees, no operations, and no offices, and 

its sole asset is the Apartment (Id. at ,r 5). 

Plaintiff contends that Carmen was removed from her position as Chairman and CEO of 

Plaintiff based on allegations that she caused Plaintiff to 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 of an 

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 

Romania or in the possession of third-party Romanian prosecutors, and Romania is 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 of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum." The First Department 

has held that a movant seeking dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens bears "a 

heavy burden of establishing that New York is an inconvenient forum and that a substantial nexus 

between New York and the action is lacking" (Elmaliach v Bank of China 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 foreign jurisdiction, 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 of forum should rarely be disturbed" (Anagnostou v Stifel, 204 AD2d 61 [1st 

Dept 1994] citing (Waterways, Ltd. v Barclays Bank PLC, 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 Risk Servs. v Cusack, 102 AD3d 461,463 [1st Dept 2013]). 

In undertaking this inquiry, the Court is mindful of its obligation to "take great care in assessing 

the adequacy of a foreign forum, [ and] not to impugn foreign judicial systems merely because they 

are different" (Wilson v pantas, 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 of the 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 meet their heavy burden of establishing that New York is an inconvenient forum and that 

a substantial nexus between New York and the action is lacking. 

The First Department has held that where New York is the situs of disputed property as a 

result of defendants' intentional transportation of the property to New York, a substantial nexus to 

New York exists as New York has a valid and compelling interest in resolving the claims involving 

the possession and ownership of the 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 

,r 4), the purchase of the Apartment took place in New York, and the purchasing entity, Tycoon, is 

a New York LLC. (NYSCEF Doc. 6 at 3). In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants 

have failed to meet their heavy burden of demonstrating 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 of dismissal (NYSCEF Doc. 56 at 21 ), the First Department has held that 

where a "case involves only one foreign jurisdiction's law," as is the case here, the burden on New 

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 of foreign laws do not impose 

"an unnecessary burden upon our judiciary since our courts are frequently called upon to apply the 

laws of foreign jurisdictions" (lntertec Contr. A/SI v 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 of Tycoon, which was the Plaintiff in a New York Supreme Court action to 

recover unpaid rent on the Apartment (see Tycoon Development, LLC v. Weston Capital Services, 

Ltd and John 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 can be found with respect to Defendants Rani and Tycoon. 

See Wilson v. Dantas, 128 A.D.3d 176, 187-88 (1st Dep't 2015) (holding that no undue hardship 

to defendants exist where the defendants "entered New York to transact business and continued to 

have contacts with New York entities during the performance of. .. contracts."). 

Although a substantial amount of evidence 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 of the Apartment. In light of 

the foregoing, the Court finds that the balance of the interests does not so strongly favor defendants 

so as to justify disturbing Plaintiff's choice of forum in this action. 1 

Accordingly, it is 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 of forum non conveniens is denied; and it is further 

ORDERED that on or before June 25, 2024, the parties are directed to submit a proposed 

Status Conference Order to the Court via e-mail to SFC-Part33-Clerk@nycourts.gov. If the 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 it is further 

ORDERED that within ten days of entry, counsel for Plaintiff Unirea Shopping Centre 

S.A. shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order, with notice of entry, on all parties to this action; 

and it is further 

1 Finding that the balance of the interests does not sufficiently favor Defendants to justify disturbing Plaintiff's 

choice of forum in this action, the Court need not consider the availability of an 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 that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. 

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. 

5/15/2024 

DATE 

CHECK ONE: 

APPLICATION: 

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: 

CASE DISPOSED 

GRANTED 

SETTLE ORDER 

IJ DENIED 

INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN 

th~ V ~...,Jr J St. 

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]