Opinion
2021-03994 Index 657110/19
06-22-2021
Kyrian Okoroafor, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Emirates Airlines, Defendant-Respondent. Appeal No. 14100 No. 2020-03109
Law Offices of K.C. Okoli, P.C., New York (Kenechukwu Okoli of counsel), for appellant. Clyde & Co U.S. LLP, New York (Andrew J. Harakas of counsel), for respondent.
Law Offices of K.C. Okoli, P.C., New York (Kenechukwu Okoli of counsel), for appellant.
Clyde & Co U.S. LLP, New York (Andrew J. Harakas of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Renwick, J.P., Kennedy, Scarpulla, Mendez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alan C. Marin, J.), entered on or about June 18, 2020, which granted the motion of defendant Emirates Airlines (Emirates) to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff failed to show that Emirates is domiciled in New York or otherwise essentially 'at home' so as to confer general personal jurisdiction over Emirates under CPLR 301 (see IMAX Corp. v Essel Group, 154 A.D.3d 464, 465-466 [1st Dept 2017]; see also Reich v Lopez, 858 F.3d 55, 63 [2d Cir 2017], cert denied US, 138 S.Ct. 282 [2017]). Emirates is headquartered and has its principal place of business in Dubai, UAE, and it operates flights internationally serving 156 airports in 84 countries. Although Emirates has an office in New York County, it cannot be said that Emirates is essentially 'at home' in New York so as to support general jurisdiction (see Daimler AG v Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 [2014]). Moreover, Emirates' registration to do business in New York does not constitute consent to submit to general jurisdiction in New York for causes of action that are unrelated to its affiliation with New York (Fekah v Baker Hughes Inc., 176 A.D.3d 527, 528 [1st Dept 2019]; see also Aybar v Aybar, 169 A.D.3d 137, 152 [2d Dept 2019], lv dismissed, 33 N.Y.3d 1044 [2019], and lv granted, 34 N.Y.3d 905 [2019]).
Further, plaintiff's action is barred by the Montreal Convention on the Unification of Certain Rules of International Carriage by Air, which preempts all state law claims within the Convention's scope (see Paradis v Ghana Airways Ltd., 348 F.Supp.2d 106, 110-111 [SD NY 2004], affd 194 Fed.Appx 5 [2d Cir 2006]). Plaintiff's claims are essentially for delay, which are covered by article 19 of the Montreal Convention (see Paradis, 348 F.Supp.2d at 112). Moreover, because Emirates ultimately transported plaintiff to Newark, plaintiff failed to allege complete nonperformance of a contractual obligation (see Weiss v El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd., 433 F.Supp.2d 361, 366 [SD NY 2006], affd 309 Fed.Appx 483 [2d Cir 2009], cert denied 557 U.S. 904 [2009]).
In view of the foregoing, we need not consider the remaining contentions.