Milev v. Xiao-I Corp.

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 23, 2026
DocketIndex No. 653294/24|Appeal No. 6946|Case No. 2025-03535|
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of Milev v. Xiao-I Corp. (Milev v. Xiao-I Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Milev v. Xiao-I Corp., (N.Y. Ct. App. 2026).

Opinion

Milev v Xiao-I Corp. - 2026 NY Slip Op 03922
skip to main content

It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.

Law Reporting
Bureau
Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter

Milev v Xiao-I Corp.

2026 NY Slip Op 03922

June 23, 2026

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Bozhidar Milev, Appellant,

v

Xiao-I Corporation, et al., Respondents, AC Sunshine Securities LLC, et al., Defendants.

Decided and Entered: June 23, 2026

Index No. 653294/24|Appeal No. 6946|Case No. 2025-03535|

Before: Renwick, P.J., Scarpulla, González, Rodriguez, O'Neill Levy, JJ.

The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., New York (Jonathan Stern of counsel), for appellant.

Stinson LLP, New York (Nicole Khalouian of counsel), for respondents.

[*1]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Andrew Borrok, J.), entered April 24, 2025, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court correctly granted the motion to dismiss, as the forum selection clause in the Deposit Agreement designated the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as the exclusive forum for claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933 (see Boss v American Express Fin. Advisors, Inc., 15 AD3d 306, 307 [1st Dept 2005], affd 6 NY3d 242, 245-246 [2006]). Contrary to plaintiff's contention, there is no ambiguity in the agreement, which specifically carves out these actions only to be brought in that forum.

We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments regarding the forum selection clause, including the argument that it is not applicable to all defendants, and find them unavailing.

Given our determination on the forum selection clause issue, we need not reach plaintiff's remaining arguments regarding the merits of the claims.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: June 23, 2026

Court Decisions

All Court Decisions Official Reports Service Bound Volumes Decision Search

Resources

RSS Feeds Style Manual Citation Tools Opinion Formatting & Privacy Guidelines Opinion Selection Criteria Legal Research Portal Site Index

About

About the Law Reporting Bureau About our Operations Contact Us Twitter

Quick Contact Info

17 Lodge Street

Albany, NY 12207

Phone: (518) 453-6900

Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Boss v. American Express Financial Advisors, Inc.
844 N.E.2d 1142 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
Boss v. American Express Financial Advisors, Inc.
15 A.D.3d 306 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Milev v. Xiao-I Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milev-v-xiao-i-corp-nyappdiv-2026.