Court Dismisses Foreign Defendant for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Despite Showing of Prior Control Over Alleged New York Agents

Posted: May 20, 2026 / Written by: Samuel L. Butt, Ian Weiss, Channing J. Turner, Thomas A. Kissane / Categories Court Rules/Procedures, Motion to Dismiss, Commercial

Court Dismisses Foreign Defendant for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Despite Showing of Prior Control Over Alleged New York Agents

On April 20, 2026, in D & V Realty LLC v. Klyukin, Index No. 656782/2022, Justice Joel M. Cohen granted defendant Mikhail Klyukin’s motion to dismiss the claims against him for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs—members of three Manhattan real-estate development LLCs—alleged that defendants effected an improper change in the management of those LLCs in February 2022, shortly before Klyukin was designated by the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control as a Specially Designated National — a designation that, under OFAC’s 50%-ownership rule, also rendered the new management entities themselves blocked persons. Klyukin, a non-domiciliary, moved to dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(8). Plaintiffs invoked long-arm jurisdiction under CPLR 302(a)(1), (a)(3), and (a)(4) and submitted emails and WhatsApp messages from 2016 through 2019 showing that Klyukin had exercised veto authority over the development projects through co-defendants then operating in New York. The Court held that, although the record showed Klyukin had exercised control over alleged New York-based agents through 2019, plaintiffs had produced no evidence—despite nearly four years of discovery—that Klyukin caused or participated in the 2022 management changes underpinning their claims. The Court also held that Klyukin’s indirect interest in New York real estate, through corporate entities, did not satisfy CPLR 302(a)(4)’s requirement that the defendant personally own, use, or possess the property at issue. In dismissing the claims, the Court explained:

Despite almost four years of discovery, Plaintiffs have produced no evidence that Mr. Klyukin—either directly or through intermediaries—caused or impacted the change in managerial control or otherwise participated in the acts of mismanagement alleged to give rise to Plaintiffs’ causes of action. While the nature of Mr. Klyukin’s position between 2016 and 2019 might (and likely does) imply that Mr. Klyukin played some role in earlier decisions, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction . . . merely based on Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations that this control continued through 2022 . . . .

The attorneys at Schlam Stone & Dolan LLP have extensive experience litigating personal jurisdiction and other threshold issues in complex commercial disputes. Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning such issues.