September 23, 2026

Dakiroks Prods., Corp v United Auto. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 51811(U))

https://www.beynensonlaw.com/case-law/dakiroks-prods-corp-v-united-auto-ins-co-2026-ny-slip-op-51811u/

Court
Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County
Judge
Sandra E. Roper, J.
Decided
September 23, 2026
Citation
2026 NY Slip Op 51811(U)
Posture
Motion to dismiss (CPLR 3211)
Outcome
Insurer prevailed
Issues
Jurisdiction and service
Cite as
Dakiroks Prods., Corp v United Auto. Ins. Co., 2026 NY Slip Op 51811(U) (Civ Ct, Kings County 2026)

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.

Service under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 253 does not establish personal jurisdiction over a no-fault insurer. The provider's affidavit invoking that statute was facially insufficient and carried no presumption of proper service. The provider then attempted service more than 120 days after commencement without obtaining leave under CPLR 306-b. The Civil Court, Kings County, granted the insurer's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, denied the provider's cross motion, including its request for a service extension, as moot and dismissed without prejudice. The court also stated that counsel's repeated misrepresentation of the statute would warrant denial of discretionary equitable relief, including an extension for good cause or in the interest of justice.

Reported in New York Official Reports at Dakiroks Prods., Corp v United Auto. Ins. Co. (2026 NY Slip Op 51811(U))

Dakiroks Prods., Corp v United Auto. Ins. Co.
2026 NY Slip Op 51811(U)
Decided on September 23, 2026
Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County
Sandra E. Roper, J.
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This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Digest-Index Classification: Process—Affidavit of Service—Service on No-Fault Insurer-Repeated Attempts to Invoke Nonresident Motorist Statute

Dakiroks Products, Corp, a/a/o Martinez, Bingenie, Plaintiff,

v

United Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant.

Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County

Decided on September 23, 2026

Index No. CV-734918-24/KI

The Rybak Firm, PLLC, Brooklyn, New York, for Plaintiff.

Bruce Somerstein & Associates P.C., New York, for Defendant.

Sandra E. Roper, J.

[*1]

Recitation, as required by CPLR §2219(a) of the papers considered in review of these Motion:

Papers

Deft’s motion to dismiss 1

Pltf’s opposition and cross motion for various relief 2

Deft’s opposition to cross-motion and reply 3

Upon the foregoing papers, Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; and Plaintiff cross-moves for various relief, including an extension of time for service.

When personal jurisdiction is challenged, Plaintiff bears the initial and ultimate burden of establishing personal jurisdiction (see Fischbarg v Doucet, 9 NY3d 375, 381 [2007]). The presumption of proper service created by an affidavit of service does not apply where such affidavit is facially insufficient (see e.g. Carrasco v Cruz, 139 AD3d 1052 [2d Dept., 2016]). Here, Plaintiff’s affidavit of service, which alleges service pursuant to VTL § 253, fails to establish personal jurisdiction over a No-Fault Insurer and is “void ab initio”, of which Plaintiff’s counsel of record is indeed well aware, or should be well aware, yet continues this pattern and practice of misrepresentation upon the court (see VTL §253; Pedro Torres-Jimenez MD, P.C. v American Access Cas. Co., 2025 NY Slip Op 50358 [U], 85 Misc 3d 1236 [A] [NYC Civ.Ct., 2025], citing Rosa v Allstate Ins. Co., 981 F2d 669, 671 [2d Cir., 1992]). Further, Plaintiff of its own volition without leave of court as required to so do, attempted subsequent service after 120 days from commencement of this action as prohibited by CPLR 306-b. Therefore, This Court does not have jurisdiction over this Defendant Insurer.

This Court admonishes Plaintiff firm’s pattern and practice of continuous misrepresentation upon the court with continuing defective facially insufficient affidavits of service. Plaintiff’s misrepresentation in attempting to obtain jurisdiction on the basis of VTL § [*2]253 is not a litigation tactic. There is no gray area nor precedential case law that can be argued here. The black and white text of the statute is unequivocal, unambiguous and unmistakable. It does not apply to No-Fault Insurers. Under the foregoing circumstances, the court would deny any jurisdictional discretionary equitable relief to the benefit of Plaintiff’s firm in which it presents with unclean hands. Misrepresentation of the law is disqualifying in prayer for relief to invoke judicial discretion for extensions for good cause or in the interests of justice (see Bumpus v NY City Tr. Auth., 66 AD3d 26, 32 [2d Dept., 2009]).

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s cross-motion is DENIED as moot. This case is dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

Date: September 23, 2026

Hon. Sandra E. Roper

Civil Court Kings County

Similar decisions