December 5, 2025
Pyramid Care, P.T., P.C. v Safe Auto Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51981(U))
https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/pyramid-care-p-t-p-c-v-safe-auto-ins-co-2025-ny-slip-op-51981u/
- Decided
- December 5, 2025
- Citation
- 2025 NY Slip Op 51981(U)
- Posture
- Motion to dismiss (CPLR 3211)
- Outcome
- Provider prevailed
- Issues
- Jurisdiction and service
Posture, outcome, issues and treatment by other decisions are Beynenson Law’s classification. Treatment labels are assigned by a language model reading the citing decision; negative and appeal-history labels are checked by a second reader.
Summary
Editorial summary by Beynenson Law, not part of the court’s decision.
Reported in New York Official Reports at Pyramid Care, P.T., P.C. v Safe Auto Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51981(U))
[*1]| Pyramid Care, P.T., P.C. v Safe Auto Ins. Co. |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 51981(U) |
| Decided on December 5, 2025 |
| Appellate Term, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports. |
Decided on December 5, 2025
PRESENT: : WAVNY TOUSSAINT, P.J., MARINA CORA MUNDY, JOANNE D. QUIÑONES, JJ
2024-1165 K C
against
Safe Auto Insurance Company, Appellant.
Alahverdian Van Leuvan, P.C. (Gerard Van Leuvan of counsel), for appellant. The Rybak Firm, PLLC (Damin J. Toell and Richard Rozhik of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County (Lola Waterman, J.), entered May 21, 2024. The order denied the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with $25 costs.
In this action by a provider to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. In support of its motion, defendant argued that the Civil Court did not obtain personal jurisdiction over it because it is an Ohio company which is not authorized to do business in New York, and that it has not filed a statement with the Superintendent of Insurance agreeing that its automobile insurance policies will be deemed to satisfy the requirements of the New York Vehicle and Traffic Law; that the $5,000 limit of the insurance policy had been exhausted prior to plaintiff’s claims; and that it was not properly served with the summons and complaint. By order entered May 21, 2024, the Civil Court (Lola Waterman, J.) solely addressed, and denied, the branch of defendant’s motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction (see CPLR 3211 [a] [8]). The court found that defendant “failed to produce evidentiary proof in admissible form.” Specifically, the affidavit by defendant’s director of claims, which was signed and notarized in Ohio, lacked a certificate of conformity, and the insurance policy’s declaration page was not certified and lacked any foundation. The order concluded by noting that “issues of material fact exist as to whether defendant does not do business in the State of New York,” and that “This case shall proceed on to trial on the issue of personal jurisdiction.” On appeal, defendant contends that the Civil Court should have granted the branch of its motion seeking to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
In addition to its determination that there were various deficiencies in defendant’s submissions which required its motion to be denied, the court found that sufficient issues of fact existed “as to whether defendant does not do business in the State of New York” and, therefore, held that the issue of personal jurisdiction would be determined at trial. We find that this determination by the Civil Court was proper under the circumstances of this case.
Defendant’s remaining contentions either lack merit or are unpreserved for appellate review.
Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
TOUSSAINT, P.J., MUNDY and QUIÑONES, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Jennifer Chan
Acting Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 5, 2025
Similar decisions
- LV Med. Diagnostic Servs., P.C. v Safe Auto Ins. Co. (2025 NY Slip Op 51974(U))The insurer's jurisdictional dismissal motion was denied because factual issues remained about whether it did business in New York. The Ohio insurer moved under CPLR 3211 (a) (8), asserting lack of personal jurisdiction and improper service, and also raised policy exhaustion.
- Pierre J. Renelique, M.D., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51736(U))The provider failed to establish personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state insurer through counsel's unsupported affirmation.
- Compas Med., P.C. v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2015 NY Slip Op 50481(U))The provider's request for jurisdictional discovery was unpreserved and lacked tangible evidence that jurisdictional facts might exist.
- Domny Med. Servs., P.C. v First Acceptance Ins. Co., Inc. (2019 NY Slip Op 52048(U))The provider failed to establish personal jurisdiction because it supplied no signed acknowledgment of service under CPLR 312-a. The provider mailed the summons and complaint to an out-of-state insurer, which moved before answering to dismiss under CPLR 3211 (a) (8).
- Parisien v American Ind. Ins. Co. (2019 NY Slip Op 51965(U))The provider's attorney affirmation lacked personal knowledge and failed to establish long-arm jurisdiction over the out-of-state insurer.