You are here: / / Plaintiff Could Not Demonstrate Valid “Nail and Mail” Service

Plaintiff Could Not Demonstrate Valid “Nail and Mail” Service

The Second Department affirmed the trial court’s determination that plaintiff was unable to demonstrate the defendant had been validly served using the “nail and mail” method:

…[T]he Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR. Where service is effected pursuant to CPLR 308(4), the so-called “nail and mail” method, the plaintiff must demonstrate that service pursuant to CPLR 308(1) or (2) (personal service or residence service) could not be made with ” due diligence'” … .This requirement must be ” strictly observed, given the reduced likelihood that a summons served pursuant to that section will be received'” … .

Here, the plaintiff produced the process server’s affidavit, which satisfied its prima facie burden regarding service. However, in her responsive affidavit, [defendant] rebutted that showing by stating specifically that (1) she was never personally served in this action, (2) she had never resided at the address where the process server attempted personal service and eventually affixed the papers, and (3) the summons and complaint were never affixed to the door of the subject premises where she had lived for more than 20 years. This showing was sufficient to warrant a hearing … .\At the hearing, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that its process server made a genuine effort to determine [defendant’s] correct address or that he made “quality” efforts to serve her with process … . Aurora Loan Services, LLC v Gaines, et al, 2013 NY Slip Op 02034, 2011-04002, Index No 20180/08, 2nd Dept. 3-27-13

 

You might also like
IN THIS PARKING-LOT-ICE SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION; THE DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Did Not Establish It Was the Lawful Holder of the Note on the Date the Action Was Commenced
STATE HAS NO DUTY TO WARN SWIMMERS OF NATURAL CONDITIONS OF THE OCEAN FLOOR, PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHILE DIVING INTO WAVES (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GENERAL RELEASE PROCURED BY FRAUD OR IN UNFAIR CIRCUMSTANCES.
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DEFENDANT’S EMPLOYEE SUCH THAT THE PROTECTIONS OF THE LABOR LAW APPLY IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE; DEFENDANT AGREED TO FIX PLAINTIFF’S CAR IN RETURN FOR PLAINTIFF’S FIXING THE ROOF OF DEFENDANT’S REPAIR SHOP (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT PORTION OF THIS HYBRID ARTICLE 78/SUMMARY JUDGMENT ACTION BECAUSE NO MOTION FOR SUMMARY DETERMINATION OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDING HAD BEEN MADE.
A MANAGING AGENT IS NOT LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE MANAGED PROPERTY UNLESS THE MANAGING AGENT EXERCISES COMPLETE AND EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE OPERATION OF THE PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT). ​
PETITIONER, WHO WAS ADMITTED TO THE PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM AFTER STARTING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CONTESTING THE WITHDRAWAL OF ADMISSION, WAS NOT A PREVAILING PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, SHE WAS NOT, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES 2ND DEPT.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Buyout Upon Dissolution Can Be Ordered by Judge  Criteria for Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Discussed in Detail