In Ayinde v. Coronet Cyber Sec., Inc., No. 162499/2025, 2026 WL 2587760 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 19, 2026) – in which plaintiff alleges discrimination in the form of “sexually explicit, insulting, and derogatory comments and conduct” due to her race, color, sexual orientation, caregiver status, sex, and gender – the court granted various defendant’s motion to dismiss due to lack of personal jurisdiction under CPLR 3211(a)(8).
From the decision:
Here, even affording plaintiff every favorable inference, she has provided no facts supporting her conclusory allegation that the defendants regularly serviced New York clients and gained access to the market through their employment by Coronet Cyber Security. Plaintiff has alleged discrimination and harassment in specific terms. For instance, in her opposition papers, plaintiff alleges that defendants Hallock and Liwer refused to give her a pay increase, that this refusal occurred in New York City, and that the impact of this refusal was felt in New York. But she has not explained how non-domiciled individuals could have undertaken in New York to refuse her a salary increase, nor how it could have impacted her–a resident of New Jersey–in New York. She has not alleged that these defendants were in daily contact with New York, either via phone, video call, or even email; nor that they sold goods or contracted clients in such a way as to affect local commerce.
Although refusing to give plaintiff a salary equal to those of her non-black, non-African American coworkers may be sufficient to establish a discrimination claim, plaintiff has not shown that defendants Hallock and Liwer transacted business within the state, nor that the discrimination was substantially related to this business.
Plaintiff’s allegations against defendants Flanagan, Harris, Turner, and Amaral are lacking in much the same way as those against Hallock and Liwer. According to plaintiff, defendants Flanagan, Harris, and Turner all failed to address plaintiff’s complaints about discrimination and harassment committed by defendant Ivis Salas. Plaintiff alleges that all three acted in New York City and that the impact was felt in New York. Plaintiff is right that if defendants have sufficient contacts with New York, they can be held liable when acting on behalf of a corporation. However, plaintiff fails to allege adequately that sufficient contacts existed here. Similarly, defendant Amaral is alleged to have ignored plaintiff’s discrimination complaints and mischaracterized a one-on-one meeting with plaintiff; but these allegations do not establish Amaral’s contacts with New York.
Moreover, plaintiff is a resident of New Jersey, not New York. She asserts that the impact of the discrimination was felt in New York, but has not offered any factual allegations to support this assertion. In sum, although plaintiff has alleged discrimination and harassment with specificity, neither the complaint nor the opposition papers provide facts that would suggest this behavior was related to business transacted with or directed at New York. Instead, after each allegation in plaintiff’s submissions of discrimination, retaliation, and/or harassment by movants, she ends with the conclusory, unsupported assertion that these acts occurred in New York City. That is insufficient for personal-jurisdiction purposes.
Finally, although plaintiff has shown that she entered into an employment agreement with Coronet Cyber Security that contains a New York forum-selection clause, she has not shown any evidence that movants also did so. Moreover, were the court to assume that these defendants entered into a similar agreement as plaintiff, she still would not be able to avail herself of that forum-selection clause for personal-jurisdiction purposes, because she would not be a party to any contracts between movants and Coronet.
(Citations omitted.)
Accordingly, the court granted various defendants’ motion to dismiss on personal jurisdiction grounds. It did, however, sever the remaining claims against the remaining parties.