Lechky v. Nayar

2024 NY Slip Op 34010(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, New York County
• Decided: November 12, 2024
• Docket: Index No. 650584/2023
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Lechky v Nayar 2024 NY Slip Op 34010(U) November 12, 2024 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 650584/2023 Judge: Lyle E. Frank 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. 650584/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/12/2024

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: HON. LYLE E. FRANK PART 11M Justice ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------X INDEX NO. 650584/2023 SCOTT LECHKY, MOTION DATE 03/15/2024 Plaintiff, MOTION SEQ. NO. 004 - V -

MANISH NAYAR, OYA SOLAR NY, L.P., OYA SOLAR US GP INC.,MANISH NAYAR HOLDINGS INC.,OYA SOLAR DECISION + ORDER ON COG LLC,OYA SOLAR CORP., OYA DOE DEFENDANTS 1-25 MOTION

Defendant. ------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------X

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43,44,45,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59, 60, 61,62, 63,64, 65,66 were read on this motion to/for DISMISS

Background

Plaintiff, Scott Lechky, brings this action against Defendants Manish Nayar, OYA Solar

NY, L.P., OYA Solar US GP INC., Manish Nayar Holdings Inc., OYA Solar CDG LLC, and

OYA Solar Corp. 1 The Defendants are Plaintiffs previous employer(s) along with affiliated

companies and individuals. All defendants, other than OYA Solar NY, L.P., move to dismiss for

lack of personal jurisdiction. Further, the defendants are seeking dismissal of the complaint due

to failure to state a claim and based on documentary evidence. Plaintiff filed a cross-motion

seeking jurisdictional discovery.

Discussion

Defendants move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff cross-moves

seeking jurisdictional discovery. "As the party seeking to assert personal jurisdiction, the

1 The Court would like to thank Special Master Jason Lowe, Esq. for his assistance in this matter. 650584/2023 LECHKY, SCOTT vs. NAYAR, MANISH ET AL Page 1 of4 Motion No. 004

1 of 4 [* 1] INDEX NO. 650584/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/12/2024

plaintiff bears the ultimate burden on this issue" (Marist Coll. v. Brady, 84 A.D.3d 1322, 1322-

1323, 924 N.Y.S.2d 529 [2 nd Dept. 2011]).

However, "in opposing a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(8) on the ground

that discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction is necessary, plaintiffs need not make a prima

facie showing of jurisdiction, but instead must only set forth 'a sufficient start, and show[ ] their

position not to be frivolous'" (Shore Pharm. Providers, Inc. v. Oakwood Care Ctr., Inc., 65

A.D.3d 623, 624, 885 N.Y.S.2d 88 [2 nd Dept. 2009], quoting Peterson v. Spartan Indus., 33

N.Y.2d 463, 467, 354 N.Y.S.2d 905, 310 N.E.2d 513 [1974]). Where the jurisdictional issue is

likely complex, discovery is "desirable, indeed may be essential, and should quite probably lead

to a more accurate judgment than one made solely on the basis of inconclusive preliminary

affidavits" (Peterson v. Spartan Indus., 33 N.Y.2d 463,467,310 N.E.2d 513,515 [1974]).

To be entitled to jurisdictional discovery a Plaintiffs pleadings, affidavits, and

accompanying documentation must show a "sufficient start" to warrant discovery on the issue of

personal jurisdiction (American BankNote Corp. v Daniele, 45 AD3d 338,350 [1st Dept

2007]). Plaintiff has made a sufficient start towards showing that this Court may have personal

jurisdiction over the defendants. There are credible allegations against each of the defendants

that could lead to personal jurisdiction being appropriate. For instance, Defendant Noyar may

have acted through various corporations with respect to transactions alleged in the complaint and

Defendant Noyar may be subject to jurisdiction in New York if the companies "engaged in

purposeful activities in this State in relation to his transaction for the benefit of and with the

knowledge and consent of [Defendant Noyar] and that [Defendant Noyar] exercised some

control over [the companies] in the matter" (Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460,467

[1988]).

650584/2023 LECHKY, SCOTT vs. NAYAR, MANISH ET AL Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 004

2 of 4 [* 2] INDEX NO. 650584/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/12/2024

Similarly, there are issues of fact regarding whether Defendant OYA Solar CDG LLC' s

principal place of business is in New York, whether OYA Solar US GP Inc. was Plaintiff's

employer, the extent of Defendant OYA Solar Corp.' s contacts with New York, and whether the

defendant entities were essentially one and the same.

There are conflicting affidavits over many of the above issues which will impact whether

this Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction over each defendant. Since Plaintiff's assertion

regarding defendants' New York contacts constitute a sufficient start, the issue of jurisdiction

should not be decided on the basis of the conflicting affidavits submitted as part of the motion to

dismiss (Stardust Dance Prods., Ltd., v Cruise Groups Intl., Inc. 63 A.D.3d 1262, 1265 [3 rd

Dept. 2009]). Rather, the issue of jurisdiction should not be decided by the court prior to

discovery on the above issues (Edelman v. Tattinger, S.A., 298 A.D.2d 301 [1st Dep't 2002]).

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff's cross motion for jurisdictional discovery in accordance

with what is ordered below.

Since the Court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction before it determines the

merits of the motion to dismiss, the motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice to renewal.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that plaintiff shall have 60 days from the date this Order is uploaded to

NYSCEF to conduct jurisdictional discovery; and it is further

ORDERED the motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice; and it is further

ORDERED if any of the defendants waive their personal jurisdiction argument, such

waiver shall act to nullify the need to participate in jurisdictional discovery; and it is further

ORDERED defendants shall answer or refile their motion to dismiss within 90 days from

the date this Order is uploaded to NYSCEF.

650584/2023 LECHKY, SCOTT vs. NAYAR, MANISH ET AL Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 004

3 of 4 [* 3] INDEX NO. 650584/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 67 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/12/2024

11/12/2024 DATE LYLE E. FRANK, J.S.C.

~ ~ CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

□ DENIED □ GRANTED GRANTED IN PART OTHER

APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER

□ CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE

650584/2023 LECHKY, SCOTT vs. NAYAR, MANISH ET AL Page4 of 4 Motion No. 004

4 of 4 [* 4]