X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
http://nycourts.law.com/CourtDocumentViewer.asp?view=Document&docID=46100 Judge Cooper DEFENDANT SOUGHT vacatur of a judgment entered after default. At a traverse hearing, he argued that service made pursuant to Civil Practice Law and Rules �308(4) deprived the court of personal jurisdiction because the summons and complaint were not affixed to his actual place of business, dwelling or usual abode and because the documents were not mailed to his last known residence. He contended that the complaint, prepared a week prior to the attempted substitute service, and a billing statement that was the subject of the complaint, listed his proper address. The court dismissed the complaint, finding that service was not made at defendant’s known actual residence. Noting the process server’s failure to document service attempted at defendant’s actual address and the server’s failure to explain the attempted service at the incorrect address, the court ruled that attempted service at an address inconsistent with the address in plaintiff’s complaint did not satisfy “due diligence” under CPLR �308(4).

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.