Court Opinion

ID: 9916495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-10 01:08:23.150987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:30.231536
License: Public Domain

Astier v Ondimba
               2024 NY Slip Op 30006(U)
                     January 2, 2024
           Supreme Court, New York County
        Docket Number: Index No. 156010/2022
                 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.
                                                                                                             INDEX NO. 156010/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

                                 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
                                           NEW YORK COUNTY
            PRESENT:           HON. MARY V. ROSADO                                         PART                           33M
                                                                                Justice
             -------------------X                                                          INDEX NO.         156010/2022
             YAMILEE BONGO ASTIER. SASHA BONGO-ASTIER,
                                                                                           MOTION DATE       05/08/2023
                                                      Plaintiff,
                                                                                           MOTION SEQ. NO.       004
                                              • V -

             PASCALINE MFERRI BONGO ONDIMBA, NESTA BONGO-
             PING, CHRISTOPHER BONG-PING, LYNN OTALY-
                                                                                             DECISION + ORDER ON
             SERGENT, MAEL JUNIOR OTALY-SERGENT, AMIN ISHA
             CORPORATION, PHARUS LLC                                                               MOTION

                                                      Defendant.

            -········-···-··-··· · - - ·-----------------------------------------------X
            The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 24, 25, 26, 27, 29,
            32, 34, 37, 48
            were read on th is motion to/for                                                 DISMISS

                     Upon the foregoing documents, and a fter oral argument which occurred on August 29,

            2023 where Kenneth Sussmane, Esq. appeared for Plaintiffs Yamille Bongo Astier and Sasha

            13ondo-1\stier (together, ''Plaintiffs"); Angelica Aminov, Esq. and Michael Grudbcrg, Esq.

            appeared for Defendants Aminisha Corporation and Pharus LLC (the "Corporate Defendants");

            and Alice Buttrick, Esq. and Jonathan P. Bach, Esq. appeared for l)cfcndants Pascalinc l'v!fcrri

            Rongo Ondimba, Nesta Bongo-Ping, Christopher Bong-Ping, Lyrm Otaly-Sergent, and Mae]

            Junior Otaly-Scrgcnt (together, the " Individual Defendants"), the Corporate l)cfcnclants motion

            for an Order dismissing Pla inti ffs' claims against them is granted .

                I.        Bac.kground

                     Plaintiffs Yamillc Bongo Asticr and her daughter Sasha 13ondo-Asticr arc alleged to be

            the daughter and granddaughter, respectfully, of Omar 13ongo Ondimba ("l'rcsiclcnt Ondimba"),

            the former President of Gabon (NYSCEF l)oc. 35 at p. 5). Plaintiffs commenced this action

             156010/2022 BONGO ASTIER, YAMILEE ET AL vs. BONGO ONDIMBA, PASCALINE MFERRI ET                  Page 1 of7
             AL
             Motion No. 004

[* 1]                                                                 1 of 7
                                                                                                       INDEX NO. 156010/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

           against the Individual Defendants and Corporate Defendants (collectively, " Defendants") on July

            19, 2022, claiming that after President Ondimba's death, Defendants misappropriated fonds from

           President Ondimba's Estate (the "Estate'') that Plaintiffs were entitled to (NYSCEF Doc. I).

                      On May 8, 2023, the Individual De fendants brought a motion (Motion Sequence 3) to

           dismiss Plaintiffs ' claims against them (NYSCEF Doc. 19). By Decision and Order dated

           January 2, 2024, this Court granted the Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'

           claims against them and denied Plaintiffs' cross-motion lbr leave to fi le an amended complaint.

                      On May 8, 2023, the Corporate Defendants brought the instant motion to dismiss

            Plaintiffs' claims against them on the grounds th,ll (1) Plaintiffs lack standing; (2) this Court

            lacks personal jurisdiction over the Corporate Defendants; (3) Plaintiffs' cl.aims are time-barred;

            (4) Plaintiffs ' plead ing fails to state a cause or action; and (5) Plaintiffa' Complaint fails to

            include necessary parties (NYSCEF Doc. 24).

                II.      Discussion

                         a. Plaintilfa' Claims are Dismissed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

                      The Corporate Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to, inter alia,

            CPLR. 32 J l (a)(8) on the ground that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Corporate

            Defendants. Where a defendant moves to dismiss pursuant to CPI..R 32 11 (a)(8), it is the

            plaintiffs burden to prove the court has jurisdiction (Copp v Ramirez, 62 AD3d 23, 28, 874 f l st

            Dept 2009.1). As discussed below, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of demonstrating

            that this Court has personal jurisdiction over the Corporate Defendants.

                      It is well established that "a court may not exercise personal j urisdiction over a

            nondomi ciliary unless two requirements are satisfied: the action is permissible under New

             156010/2022 BONGO ASTIER. YAMILEE ET AL vs. BONGO ONDIMBA, PASCALINE MFERRI ET             Page 2 of 7
             AL
             Motion No. 004

[* 2]                                                       2 of 7
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 156010/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

           York's long-arm statute, and the exercise ofjurisdiction comports with due prncess" (English v

           Avon Prods.. Inc., 206 AD3d 404,405 [1st Dept 2022]).

                                   1.   Plaintiffa' Claims arc not Permissible Under CPLR 302(a)

                   Preliminarily, Plaintiffs concede that the Corporate Defendants are residents o f California

           (NYSCEF Doc. 1 at ii!\ at 5). Pursuant to CPLR 302(a), a New York court may exercise

            personal jurisdiction over any non-domici liary, or his executor or administrator, who in person or

           through an agent:

                           ( 1) transacts any business wi thin the state or contracts anywhere to
                           supply goods or services in the stale; or (2) commits a tortious act
                           within the state . .. ; or (3) commits a tortious act without the state
                           causing injury to person or property within the state ... if he (i)
                           regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent
                           course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used
                           or consumed or services rendered , in the state, or (ii) expects or
                           sho uld reasonably expect the act to have consequences in the state
                           and derives substantia.1 revenue from interstate or international
                           commerce; or (4) 0\,1lS, uses or possesses any real property simatcd
                           within the state.

                   Plaintiffs Complaint contains no allegation that the Corporate Defendants transacted any

            busine.% in New York State, engaged in any tortious act within New York State, or possessed

            any property in New York State. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs contend that the Complaint satisfies

            each clement of CPLR 302(a)(3) with respect to the Corporate Defendants hccausc Plaintiffs'

            claims, if proven, would "establish the tortious acts of fraudulent conveyance and unj ust

            enrichment committed outside New York ... [wh.ich] would rea,onahle be expected to have

            consequences tn Plaintiffs in New York" (NYSCEF Doc. 37 at p. 6). l'or the reasons outlined

            below, this argument is unavai ling.

                   II is well established that, for the purposes of CPLH. 302(a)(3), " the situs or the injury is

            the location o r the original event which caused the injury, not the location where the resultant

             15601 0/2022 BONGO ASTIER, YAMILEE ET AL vs. BONGO ONDIMBA, PASCALINE MFERRI ET         Page 3 of 7
             AL
             Motion No. 004

[* 3]                                                     3 of 7
                                                                                                      INDEX NO. 156010/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

            damages arc subsequently felt" (Cotia (USA) Ltd v l.ynn Steel Cmp.. 134 AD3d 483. 484 fist

            Dept 2015 J (internal citations omitted); see also (Marie v Altshuler, 30 AD3d 271, 272 I I st Dept

            20061) (holding that " the rule that the situs of the injUI)' for long-am1 purposes is where the event

            giving rise to the injury occurred, not where the resultant damages occurred, is not restricted 10

            medical malpractice or personal injury cases"). Further, Courts have firmly held that ··the

            residence or domicile of the injured party within a State is not a suflicicnt predicate for

            jurisdiction. which must be based upon a more direct injury within the State and a closer

            expectation of consequences within the State than the indirect financial loss resulting from the

            fact that the injured person resides or is domiciled there·' (Famis Foods, Inc. v Standard

            Importing Co. 49 NY2d 3 17, 326 f 19801; see also, (HH Trinity Apex lnvs. I.LC v Smith,

            Anderson. JJloum. Dorsett. lvfifche/1 & Jernigan, L.L. P., 2 10 ADJd 474, 476 [ I st Dept 20221)

            (ho lding thut " Plaintiff.~' rel iance on fan] alleged extortion as a bas is for CPL R 302(a)(3)

            jurisdiction is ... misplaced, because their having felt economic inj ury in New York, a lone. is not

            suflicicnt 10 confer jurisdiction under that subsection").

                    Accordingly, Plaintil'fs' claim that the effects of the Corporate De fendants' alleged

            tortious conduct '·would reasonably be expected lo have consequences to Plaintiffs in New

            York;' is not suflicienl lo allege that the Corporate Defendants commiucd a tortious act causing

            injury to Plaintiffs ' person or property in l\ew York under Cl'LR 302(aX2) or (a)(3).

                    Having failed to claim that the Corporate Defendants transacted any business in Kew

            York. engaged in any tortious act in New York, owned any property in New York , or caused any

            injury 10 Plaintiffs· person or property in New York, Plaintiffs fail to establish that this Court has

            personal jurisdiction over the Corporate Defendants under CPT.R 302(a). Accordingly, Plaintiffs'

            claims against the Corporate Defendants must be dismissed.

             156010/2022 BONGO ASTIER, YAMILEE ET A L vs. BONGO ONDIMBA, PASCALINE MFERRI ET           Page • of 7
             AL
             Motion No. 004

[* 4]                                                       4 of 7
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 156010/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53                                                                        RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

                                   ii. This Court's Exercise of Personal Jurisdiction Over the Corporate
                                       Defendants Would Not Comport with Due Process

                    Even assuming arguendo and contrat)' to law and fact that Plaintills surliciently pied

            injury to person or property within New York, this Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over

            the Corporate Defendants would violate the requirements or due process.

                    Once the requirements of CPLR 302(a) have been met , further inquiry is required "to

            determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with traditional notions of fair

            play, substantial justice, and due process" (l.:nglish at 406). The "due process" element "is

            satisfied where the nondomiciliat)' has minimum contacts with New York State and based upon

            those contacts, defendant could or should have reasonably anticipated being 'haled into court'

            here" (Id. at 407).

                    The Court of Appeals has held that jurisdiction will be upheld "where the defendant

            purposefully reaches beyond their State into another but 'the relationshi p between the defendant

            and the forum state must arise out of defendant's own contacts with the forum and not contacts

            between the plaintiff.. .and the fornm State"' (Slate o,(New York v Vayu, Inc. 39 NY3d 330, 337

            r202Jl) (quoting Williams v Bee miller, Inc.. 33 NY3d 523, 529 [2019 J).

                    ln Walden v Fiore, 57 1 lJ.S. 277 (2014), the United States Supreme Court held that;

                            "mere injury to a forum resident i~ not a sufficient connection to the
                            fonun .. .The proper question is not where the plainti ff experienced
                            a particular injury or effect but whether the de/endant's conduct
                            connects him to the forum in a meaningful way.'·

            The Walden Court forther held that where a defendant's relevant conduct occurred entirely out of

            state, ''the mere fact that his conduct affected plaintiff~ wi th connections to the forum State does

            not suffice to authorize jurisdiction" (Id. at 291). For the exercise of personal j urisdiction to be

            proper, "it is essential that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of

             1S6010/2022 BONGO ASTIER, YAMILEE ET AL vs. BONGO ONOIMBA, PASCALINE MFERRI ET          Page sof7
             AL
             Motion No, 004

[* 5]                                                      5 of 7
                                                                                                                 INDEX NO. 156010/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53                                                                                   RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

            the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and

            protections of its laws'' (DeUlsche Bank Sec., Inc. v i\tfomana Bd. oflnvs.. 21 t'\.D3d 90, 94 List

            Dept 2005 J).

                     In the case at bar, Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to allege that the Corporate Defendants had

            sufficient contacts with New York to estab lish personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' claim that the

            Corporate Defendants knew that Plaintiffs lived in New York and were likely to suffer damages

            there (NYSCEF Doc. 35 at p. 6) is insufficient to establish the Corporate Defendants requisite

            contacts with New York.

                     As the Corporate Defendants arc not domiciled in New York and Plaintiffs have failed to

            adequately c.laim that the Corporate Defendants transacted any business in New York, engaged

            in any tortious act within New York, possessed any property in New York, caused injury to

            Plainti ffs' person or properly in New York, or established the requisite minimum contacts in

            New York to satisfy due process, this Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the

            Corporate Defendants pursuant to CPLR 302, and Plainti ll\' claims against the Corporate

            Defendants must be dismissed. 1

                     Accordingly, it is hereby,

                     ORDERED that the Corporate Defendants' motion fi.>r an Order dismissing Plaintiffa'

            claims against them is granted, and Plaintiff.~' claims against the Corporate Defendants are

            dismissed in their entirety; and it is further

                     ORDERED that wiihin ten (10) days of entry, counsel for the Corporate Defendants shall

            serve a copy of this Decision and Order, with notice ofenlly, on Plaintiffs Yam ille Rongo Astier

            and Sasha I3ondo-Astier; and it is further

            1
              Having dism issed Plaintiffs' chims ag ainst the Individual Defendants hascd on this Court's lack of personal
            jurisdiction. lhc Individual Defendants' alternative grounds for dismissal need not be considcrcc.l.

             156010/2022 BONGO AS TIER, YAMILEE ET AL vs. BONGO ONDIMBA, PASCALINE MFERRI ET                     Page 6 of 7
             AL
             Motion No. 004

[* 6]                                                             6 of 7
                                                                                                     INDEX NO. 156010/2022
  NYSCEF DOC. NO. 53                                                                          RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/02/2024

                    ORDF.RF.D that the Clerk oflhe Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

                    This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

                      11212024
                       DATE                                                       HON.      RY V. ROSADO, J .S.C.

            CHfC.KON1!:               a   CASE DISPOSED                x    NON..ftNAL otSPOSITION

                                          GRANTED         □ DENIED     x    GRAHTED IH PART            □ OTHER
             APPUC.I.TION:                SETTLE ORDER                      SUS,.TOAOER

             CHECK If APPROPRl•TE:        INCLUDES TRANSFERJREASSIGN        FIOUCIARY APPOINTMENT      □ REFERENCE

            156010/2022 BONGO ASTIER, YAMILEE ET AL v5. BONGO ONDIMBA, PASCALINE MFERRI ET            Page 7 of7
            AL
             Motion No. oo•

[* 7]                                                     7 of 7