Kruglov v. Allstate Ins. Co.
Docket CV-24-0049
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02306
- Docket
- CV-24-0049
Appeal from an order granting defendants' cross-motions to dismiss the complaint in an action alleging fraud, conversion, conspiracy and negligent hiring and supervision.
Summary
The Appellate Division reviewed a dismissal of a pro se plaintiff's complaint against multiple insurers and Copart that alleged fraud, conversion, conspiracy and negligent hiring tied to sales of salvaged vehicles and parts. The court affirmed dismissal of the claims against the insurer defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction because the plaintiff served them by certified mail instead of through the strict methods required for corporations. The court reversed the dismissal as to Copart, finding Copart had answered and participated in discovery and therefore had not preserved lack-of-service defenses. The case against Copart is reinstated and returned for further proceedings.
Issues Decided
- Whether service of process by certified mail satisfied the statutory requirements for obtaining personal jurisdiction over corporate defendants.
- Whether the doctrine of claim preclusion barred the plaintiff's second action.
- Whether dismissal of claims against Copart was proper where Copart previously answered and engaged in discovery without asserting improper service or res judicata as defenses.
- Whether a defendant may recover counsel fees for frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 and who is entitled to such fees.
Court's Reasoning
The court held that certified mail service did not meet the strict personal-service rules for corporations under CPLR 311(a)(1), Business Corporation Law provisions, or CPLR 312-a, so jurisdiction over the insurer defendants was not obtained. The court found Copart had waived defects in service and res judicata defenses by serving an answer and actively participating in disclosure without asserting those defenses, so dismissal as to Copart was improper. The request for counsel-fee relief under the frivolous-conduct rule was left for further proof and is not yet decided.
Authorities Cited
- CPLR 3211(a)(7)
- Cedar Run Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v Adirondack Dev. Group, LLC173 AD3d 1330 (3d Dept 2019)
- 22 NYCRR 130-1.1
Parties
- Appellant
- Dmitry Kruglov
- Respondent
- Allstate Insurance Company
- Respondent
- Chubb Lloyds Insurance Company of Texas
- Respondent
- State Farm Insurance
- Respondent
- AT & T Services Inc.
- Defendant
- Copart of Connecticut, Inc.
- Judge
- Fisher, J.
- Judge
- Garry, P.J.
Key Dates
- Decision entered
- 2026-04-16
- Calendar date
- 2026-02-11
- Supreme Court order appealed (entry date)
- 2023-12-01
- Original action filed
- 2018-12-01
- Underlying action filed
- 2023-05-01
What You Should Do Next
- 1
For plaintiff (Kruglov): Correct service for insurer defendants
If he wishes to pursue claims against the insurer defendants, he should consult counsel and arrange personal service that complies with CPLR and Business Corporation Law requirements or otherwise seek leave to amend — recognizing leave-to-amend was not raised below and may be procedurally limited.
- 2
For plaintiff: Proceed against Copart in Supreme Court
Prepare for further litigation (discovery and motion practice) on the reinstated claims against Copart and respond to the previously denied motion to compel, which is remitted for consideration.
- 3
For Chubb: Submit supplemental proof for fees
Provide the additional documentation and proof of counsel fees and costs as directed by Supreme Court so the frivolous-conduct application can be resolved.
- 4
For all parties: Consider settlement discussions
Given partial dismissal and reinstatement, parties may evaluate risks and consider mediation or settlement to avoid protracted litigation.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide about service of process?
- The court decided that sending the summons and complaint by certified mail did not satisfy the statutory methods for personal service on corporations, so the insurer defendants were not properly served and the court lacked jurisdiction over them.
- Why was the claim against Copart reinstated?
- Copart had answered the complaint and participated in discovery without asserting improper service or res judicata defenses, so it waived those defenses and the dismissal as to Copart was reversed.
- Is the plaintiff's case over?
- No. The claims against the insurer defendants remain dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but the claim against Copart is reinstated and will proceed in Supreme Court for further litigation.
- Will Chubb automatically get attorney's fees for filing a frivolous suit?
- Not automatically. The court found frivolous conduct but directed Chubb to submit additional evidence; the amount and entitlement to fees have not been decided yet.
- Can the plaintiff appeal this decision further?
- Potentially, but the order is final only as to the dismissal of the insurers and the reinstatement of claims against Copart. Further review may depend on future rulings or permission for leave to appeal to a higher court.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Kruglov v Allstate Ins. Co. - 2026 NY Slip Op 02306 Kruglov v Allstate Ins. Co. 2026 NY Slip Op 02306 April 16, 2026 Appellate Division, Third Department Dmitry Kruglov, Appellant, v Allstate Insurance Company et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. Decided and Entered:April 16, 2026 CV-24-0049 Calendar Date: February 11, 2026 Before: Garry, P.J., Aarons, Ceresia, Fisher And Mackey, JJ. Dmitry Kruglov, Miami, Florida, appellant pro se. Lewis Johs Avallone Aviles, LLP, Islandia (Joseph A. Materazo of counsel), for Allstate Insurance Company, respondent. Cozen O'Connor, New York City (Vincent Passarelli of counsel), for Chubb Lloyds Insurance Company of Texas, respondent. Rivkin Radler LLP, Uniondale (Evan H. Krinick of counsel), for State Farm Insurance, respondent. Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, New York City (Marsha J. Indych of counsel), for AT & T Services Inc., respondent. Fisher, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Kevin Bryant, J.), entered December 1, 2023 in Ulster County, which, among other things, granted defendants' cross-motions to dismiss the complaint. In December 2018, plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, commenced an action against multiple defendants asserting various causes of action sounding in fraud, conversion, conspiracy and negligent hiring and supervision. Such allegations were in connection with the sales of salvaged vehicle and auto parts to plaintiff by defendant Copart of Connecticut, Inc. (hereinafter Copart). Supreme Court ultimately granted each defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action ( see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). In May 2023, still proceeding pro se, plaintiff commenced the underlying action asserting substantially similar allegations and causes of action against the same defendants. Copart joined issue by serving an answer, and plaintiff moved for a default judgment against the remaining defendants Allstate Insurance Company, AT & T Services Inc., Chubb Lloyds Insurance Company of Texas (hereinafter Chubb)FN1 and State Farm Insurance (hereinafter collectively referred to as the moving defendants). The moving defendants separately cross-moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of lack of personal jurisdiction for improper service and as barred by res judicata. Chubb also claimed that plaintiff engaged in frivolous conduct by filing a near-identical complaint which failed to correct the defects determined to exist in the previously dismissed complaint, and therefore sought counsel fees and costs. Supreme Court, determining that service of process was improper, denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment and granted the moving defendants' cross-motions — dismissing the complaint against all defendants, including Copart. Supreme Court also determined that res judicata barred the action and granted Chubb leave to submit a supplemental application for counsel fees and costs. Plaintiff appeals.FN2 In opposing a motion to dismiss the complaint for a lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff has the "burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that jurisdiction over the defendant[s] was obtained by proper service of process" ( Cedar Run Homeowners' Assn., Inc. v Adirondack Dev. Group, LLC , 173 AD3d 1330, 1330 [3d Dept 2019] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Here, plaintiff was required to serve the summons and complaint on the moving defendants by personal delivery on any of the corporate representatives listed under CPLR 311 (a) (1), to any other agent authorized by appointment or law to receive service under Business Corporation Law §§ 306 or 307, or in compliance with the requirements for personal service by mail under CPLR 312-a. By sending the summons and complaint via certified mail, none of these strict statutory requirements were satisfied, and therefore plaintiff did not obtain jurisdiction over the moving defendants ( see Matter of Basile v New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance , 233 AD3d 1226, 1227 [3d Dept 2024]). To the extent that plaintiff seeks leave to amend the complaint and correct the defects in service, such request is not properly before us because it was not raised before the trial court ( see Cedar Dev. E., LLC v Board of Educ. of Onteora Cent. Sch. Dist. , 229 AD3d 950, 953 [3d Dept 2024], lv dismissed & denied 43 NY3d 934 [2025]; Matter of Colihan v State of New York , 211 AD3d 1432, 1435 [3d Dept 2022]). Therefore, Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint against the moving defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. We do, however, agree with plaintiff that Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint against Copart. Before any of the moving defendants sought dismissal for lack of proper service or res judicata, Copart joined issue by serving an answer — which did not assert either of these grounds as an affirmative defense ( see CPLR 3211 [e]). When the moving defendants subsequently cross-moved, our review of the record reveals that Copart was concurrently engaged in active disclosure with plaintiff — not joining any of the motions, despite being served or copied with same. Accordingly, we modify the order of Supreme Court to reinstate the complaint against Copart. In light of this determination, the branch of Supreme Court's order that denied, as moot, plaintiff's motion to compel the production of certain documents against Copart must also be reinstated and remitted for consideration. Lastly, plaintiff challenges the branch of Supreme Court's order which directed Chubb to submit a supplemental application for counsel fees and costs. In doing so, plaintiff does not dispute the finding of frivolous conduct under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. Rather, plaintiff limits his contentions to Chubb's counsel being entitled to such relief, which is without merit ( see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [a]), and as to the propriety of the total amount sought by counsel, which has not yet been decided. Since this portion of the order merely requested additional proof to aid in the disposition of a motion, which remains pending and undecided, it does not affect a substantial right and is therefore not appealable as of right ( see CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [v]; Bank of N.Y. v Segui , 120 AD3d 1369, 1370 [2d Dept 2014]; see also Torres v Moran , 143 AD3d 730, 732 [2d Dept 2016]; see generally Sholes v Meagher , 100 NY2d 333, 335 [2003]). We have considered the parties' remaining contentions, and have found them to be without merit, academic or not properly before us. Garry, P.J., Aarons, Ceresia and Mackey, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as dismissed the complaint against defendant Copart of Connecticut, Inc. and denied plaintiff's motion to compel; and, as so modified, affirmed. Footnotes Footnote 1: Named in the complaint as "Chubb Group." Footnote 2: Copart did not participate in this appeal.