Thomas B. DeLoach, Appellant, v. GEICO (2026)

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action in October 2024 seeking to recover the principal sum of $50,000, alleging that defendant failed to pay benefits that were due plaintiff under a renter's insurance policy. In a declaration of non-service, a process server affirmed that, on October 31, 2024, service was attempted on defendant at 55 Broadway, New York, NY 10006 but, upon speaking with a security guard at the building, the process server was informed that defendant had moved two months ago and no longer occupied space in the building. In a subsequent affirmation of service, a process server affirmed that, on November 4, 2024 at 12:22 p.m., he was at 28 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10005 and "delivered the [summons and complaint] to Mohamed Dansoko (Intake Specialist) who identified themselves [sic] as the person authorized to accept with identity confirmed by subject stating their name. The individual accepted service with direct delivery."

By notice of motion dated January 13, 2025, plaintiff moved for leave to enter a default judgment, as defendant had not appeared or answered, relying on the completed service of November 4, 2024 at 28 Liberty Street. Defendant, identifying itself as "Assurant, Inc.," cross-moved to dismiss the complaint arguing that, as plaintiff had failed to properly serve defendant, the Civil Court lacked personal jurisdiction over it and, thus, the action should be dismissed. Additionally, defendant argued that plaintiff had incorrectly named the defendant and that, in any event, defendant was not a proper party.

Annexed to defendant's cross-motion was the affirmation of the manager of Expat Capital Group, LLC (Expat), which maintains an office at 28 Liberty Street. The manager affirmed that plaintiff incorrectly served Expat in this suit, presumably based on a misunderstanding of Expat's business identity, as Expat had previously operated under the name of "Assurant Capital Group, LLC." Expat had changed its name at the end of October 2019 and "Assurant, a division of Geico" had never been the correct legal name for Expat, nor did GEICO have any ownership interest or affiliation with Expat. Moreover, Expat assists foreign nationals in obtaining loans for the purchase of vehicles and did not engage in the insurance, claims adjusting, or risk management businesses.

Also annexed to defendant's cross-motion were copies of the declaration of non-service and additional affirmations of service. One affirmation of service was the affirmation that stated service was completed on November 4, 2024 at 28 Liberty Street. Another affirmation stated that, on January 21, 2025 at 3:00 p.m., service was completed at 28 Liberty Street, 42nd floor, by delivery of the summons and complaint to an intake specialist of the "Expat Capital Group LLC."

Plaintiff responded that service was effectuated on November 4, 2024 at 28 Liberty Street, which is an address that defendant publicly lists as a business address. Additionally, service was also properly accepted at 28 Liberty Street on January 21, 2025 and defendant even admits that it received the complaint on February 14, 2025, within the 120-day window of CPLR 306 (b) (which would have expired on February 26, 2025). Moreover, Kaitlynn Flyyn, attorney at Rivkin Law Group, prior counsel for defendant, admitted receipt of the documents that plaintiff had served on her on January 21, 2025, which included the summons and complaint.

Annexed to plaintiff's opposition was a one-page document containing unverified information about Assurant, Inc., listing the headquarter's address as 28 Liberty Street, 41st floor, New York, NY 10005, with an additional office address at 55 Broadway, Suite 2901, New York, NY 10006.

By order entered June 25, 2025, the Civil Court (Pamela P. Fynes, J.) denied plaintiff's motion for leave to enter a default judgment and granted Assurant, Inc.'s cross-motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that, "despite multiple attempts to serve, and at various locations, plaintiff still has not served defendant." Additionally, the Civil Court found that Assurant, Inc. had established that it was not the same entity as the named defendant.

On appeal, plaintiff contends that process was properly served upon an authorized individual at a publicly listed office for defendant on November 4, 2024 at 28 Liberty Street as well as on January 21, 2025, and that defendant is the proper party. Plaintiff further contends that the Civil Court erred in granting Assurant, Inc.'s motion despite the liberal pleading standards applied to pro se litigants, and Assurant, Inc.'s failure to submit documentary support for its assertions. Defendant responds that plaintiff is not afforded any greater rights as a pro se litigant, and plaintiff failed to properly serve the party being sued or identify the correct party.

Pursuant to CPLR 311 (a) (1), personal service upon a corporation shall be made by personally delivering the summons to an officer, director, managing or general agent, or cashier or assistant cashier or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service. Service on a business corporation may also be made upon a registered agent or the Secretary of State pursuant to Business Corporation Law § 306. Moreover, service on an insurance company may be made upon the Superintendent of the Department of Financial Services pursuant to Insurance Law § 1212 (b).

Here, defendant established that it was not served in any of the above manners. Plaintiff's contention that service was properly effectuated on November 4, 2024 at 28 Liberty Street is without merit. The affirmation of Expat's manager makes clear that Expat was not, nor was it ever, affiliated with Assurant, Inc., and service upon it was made by mistake. Plaintiff failed to rebut this showing. Plaintiff's assertion that 28 Liberty Street is listed as Assurant, Inc.'s office in its public filings is not supported by the document submitted by plaintiff as the document did not provide its source and did not otherwise substantiate plaintiff's claim. For the same reason, service on January 21, 2025 at 28 Liberty Street also failed.

Since the affirmations of service failed to establish, prima facie, proper service on defendant, no personal jurisdiction was ever acquired over defendant (see Klein v Educational Loan Servicing, LLC, 71 AD3d 957 [2010]; Dominguez v Stimpson Mfg. Corp., 207 AD2d 375 [1994]; Gateway Med., P.C. v Progressive Ins. Co., 30 Misc 3d 144[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50336[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]), and, thus, the action was properly dismissed.

In view of the foregoing, we do not reach the issue of whether defendant was properly named in this action or any other issue.

Accordingly, the order is affirmed.

TOUSSAINT, P.J., MUNDY and QUIÑONES, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Jennifer Chan

Chief Clerk

Decision Date: June 12, 2026