The following electronically filed documents read on this motion:Papers NumberedPlaintiff’s Notice of Motion-Affid(s)- Exh (s) EF 3-6 Plaintiff, by notice of motion, seeks an order pursuant to CPLR 308, for alternate service upon defendant Janton Timothy Jaskson.This case involves the selling of a Patek Philippe watch for $34,000 from defendant to plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges in his complaint that the watch is a fake.The parties were first connected over a website called www.chrono24.com “Chrono 24″, where buyers are matched with sellers of luxury watches. On Chrono24, the parties communicated via the website’s messaging service where they engaged in negotiations regarding the price and shipping costs of the watch in question.The parties then transitioned their conversation to Whatsapp, which is a free international messaging service. These negotiations included the final sale price of $34,000, and the agreement that plaintiff would have 30 days to examine the watch. Within that 30 day period plaintiff alleges that he was able to determine that the watch in question was a fake. Plaintiff attempted to return the watch via D.H.L. to the defendant’s address listed on the sales agreement. When D.H.L. notified the plaintiff that the delivery would not go through, he commenced the action on August 27, 2018.Plaintiff hired Supreme Judicial Services to serve defendant. On September 5, 2018, Steven Scalafani, who is a process server employed by Supreme Judicial Services, attempted to serve defendant at 99-28 Albert Road. However, that address does not exist due to the fact that for the 99 block of Albert Road the addresses range from 99-1 through 99-27. The plaintiff provides an affidavit of Mr. Scalfani dated September 20, 2018 as proof of unsuccessful service.Pursuant to CPLR 308(5) a court may direct the manner in which service can be made. “An application for alternative service under CPLR 308(5) can be granted only upon a sufficient showing that personal service, ‘substitute service,’ or ‘nail and mail’ service would prove ‘impracticable’”. (Baidoo v. Blood-Dzraku, 48 Misc 3d 309, 311 [Sup Ct, N.Y. Cnty. 2015]). “[T]he Constitution does not require any particular means of service of process, only that the method selected be reasonably calculated to provided notice and an opportunity to respond.” (Hollow v. Hollow, 193 Misc 2d 691, 695 [Sup Ct, N.Y. Cnty. 2002] citing Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio Intern. Interlink, 284 F3d 1007, 1017 [9th Cir 2002]; See also Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 US 306, 314 [1950]).Recently, courts have been permitting service via electronic communication. (Baidoo v. Blood-Dzraku 48 Misc 3d 309, 311 [Sup Ct, N.Y. Cnty. 2015]). In the Baidoo case, service was permitted through Facebook messenger, when it was shown to be impractical to provide service by other means. (See also Hollow v. Hollow, 193 Misc 2d 691, 693 [N.Y. Sup Ct 2002]; In re J.T., 53 Misc 3d 888, 893 [Fam Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2016])Here, it has been shown that it is impracticable to serve the defendant through traditional means prescribed for in the CPLR. However, the parties were able to communicate successfully via Whatsapp. Thus, this court finds that service should be made via Whatsapp and also a local Queens newspaper.Therefore the motion is granted, and it is furtherORDERED, that the plaintiff’s attorney shall log onto his client’s Whatsapp account, and message the defendant by first identifying himself, and then including either a web address of the summons with notice or attaching an image of the summons with notice.ORDERED, that plaintiff shall provide service via publication once in the Queens Daily Eagle (8900 Sutphin Blvd, LL11 Jamaica, NY 11435, 718-643-99099).Dated: Long Island City, NYOctober 29, 2018
