Recitation, as required by CPLR 2219 (a), of the papers considered in the review of this application:

Upon the foregoing cited papers, and after oral argument, the decision on the Defendant's motion is as follows:

Plaintiff, TIM CANTY M.D. PLLC (hereinafter, "Plaintiff"), as assignee of CONNOR O KEEFE (hereinafter, "Assignor"), commenced this action against the defendant, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE CO., (hereinafter, "Defendant"), to recover assigned first-party No-Fault benefits for medical treatment provided to Assignor.

Defendant moves to dismiss the Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service. The Defendant argues that Insurance Law § 1212(b) does not allow for service by mail. Since the affidavit of service states that the summons and complaint were mailed to DFS, the Defendant argues this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. In opposition, Plaintiff argues that the Acknowledgement of Service provided by DFS (NYSCEF Doc. No. 12) establishes proper service over the Defendant. The motions were argued before the undersigned and submitted.

Insurance Law § 1212 requires that authorized insurers execute a power of attorney appointing the Superintendent of Insurance, or its designee, for purposes of service of process. Service of process upon any such insurer "may be made by serving the superintendent, any [*2]deputy superintendent, or any salaried employee of the department whom the superintendent designates for such purpose, all of whom shall have authority to accept such service pursuant to any such power of attorney" (Insurance Law § 1212(b)). "Whenever any lawful process shall be served upon the superintendent . . . such person shall forward a copy of such process by mail, prepaid, directed to the person last designated by such insurer" (Insurance Law § 1212(e)). The Insurance Law is silent as to the methods of service acceptable to effectuate proper service.

The New York State Insurance Department Office of General Counsel offered guidance on this topic in Opinion No. 07-06-24, issued on June 26, 2007.^[FN1] As contained in that opinion, DFS's official position is that "substituted service through personal or mail delivery to the Superintendent's designee at the Insurance Department's New York City or Albany Office is service of process on an authorized or unauthorized insurer pursuant to Insurance Law § 1212 or 1213, respectively, and that shall be deemed to have been made within the territorial jurisdiction of any court of competent jurisdiction in New York State" (emphasis added). Further, the Court takes judicial notice of the DFS website which states that pursuant to the Insurance Law, "[s]ervice may be made by mailing or delivering the process or legal documents to the Superintendent as follows: By mail: Addressed to New York State Department of Financial Services, Corporate Affairs Unit, One Commerce Plaza - 20th Floor, Albany, New York 12257."^[FN2]

As several courts of appellate authority have held, the acknowledgement of service by DFS establishes that proper service was effectuated under Insurance Law § 1212. In Kircher v William Penn Life Ins. Co. of New York, the Appellate Division, Second Department found that the Plaintiff "properly effected service of process upon the defendant pursuant to Insurance Law § 1212 by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the Superintendent of Insurance" (see Insurance Law § 1212 [a]) (165 AD3d 1241, 1242 [2d Dept 2018]). The underlying proof of service filed in the Supreme Court constituted solely of DFS's acknowledgement of service, the same as provided by the Plaintiff in this action. Additionally, the Appellate Division, First Department has held that "service was complete to establish personal jurisdiction" when DFS acknowledged the plaintiff's service of the summons and complaint (Greater New York Mut. Ins. Co. v Kinsale Ins. Co., 226 AD3d 408, 409 [1st Dept 2024]). Again, the only proof of service filed in the Supreme Court was the acknowledgement of service by DFS. Therefore, the acknowledgement by DFS establishes that service was properly effectuated over an insurer in accordance with Insurance Law § 1212.

In reviewing the appellate authority, and position of DFS, the Court finds that the Plaintiff properly effectuated service in this matter. DFS would only forward the summons and complaint to a defendant after "lawful process [is] served upon the superintendent. . ." (Insurance Law § 1212(e)). Therefore, it stands to reason that DFS deems the service performed herein "lawful process" and appropriate to comply with Insurance Law § 1212. There is no claim by the Defendant that it did not receive the papers from DFS, only that service upon DFS was improper. The Plaintiff properly served DFS at its Albany address and DFS acknowledged such [*3]service,^[FN3] establishing personal jurisdiction over the Defendant in this case.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Defendant's motion is DENIED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that the Defendant shall file and serve an answer within 21 days of the date of this Order.

This is the decision and order of the Court.