You are here: / / Process Servers Outside of New York City Are Not Required to Keep a “Log...

Process Servers Outside of New York City Are Not Required to Keep a “Log Book

The Second Department explained that, under the relevant provisions of the General Business Law, process servers outside the City of New York are not required to keep a “log book” for recording service:

General Business Law § 89-u, which applies to process servers outside of the City of New York, requires process servers to “maintain a legible record of all service made by him [or her] as prescribed in this section” (General Business Law § 89-u[1]). Unlike General Business Law § 89-cc(1), which is applicable in the City of New York, General Business Law § 89-u, which is applicable outside the City of New York, does not expressly require that the “legible record” be “kept in chronological order in a bound, paginated volume” (General Business Law § 89-cc[1]), i.e., a log book. “Pursuant to the maxim of statutory construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius, where a law expressly describes a particular act, thing or person to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted and excluded” … . Since the Legislature did not include a log book requirement for process servers in counties outside of the City of New York, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the process server in Nassau County was required to maintain such log book. Moret Partnership v Spickerman, 2015 NY Slip Op 01248, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF DEEMED TO HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE SETTLEMENT DOCUMENT BEFORE SIGNING, LEGAL MALPRACTICE COMPLAINT AGAINST HER ATTORNEYS PROPERLY DISMISSED.
Subcontractor Could Not Recover From Property Owners Absent Proof the Owners Consented to Pay the Subcontractor—Owners Hired the General Contractor Who In Turn Hired the Subcontractor
NO FOUNDATION FOR THE ADMISSIBILITY OF BUSINESS RECORDS RELIED UPON BY THE REFEREE WAS LAID; THE REFEREE RELIED ON UNIDENTIFIED AND UNPRODUCED RECORDS; THE JUDGMENT OF FORELCOSURE SHOUILD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PEOPLE PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF ON RISK FACTORS 2 AND 4, REQUIRING A 45 POINT REDUCTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS ASSAULTED BY ANOTHER PATIENT IN DEFENDANT LONG-TERM CARE FACILITY; THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF THE ASSAILANT, WHO WAS NOT A PARTY, WERE PRIVILEGED AND NOT DISCOVERABLE; THE INCIDENT REPORTS PERTAINING TO THE ASSAULT WERE NOT SHOWN BY THE DEFENDANT TO BE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW AND WERE THEREFORE DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, FOUND THAT A DEFENDANT WHO HAD NOT BEEN SERVED WAS A NECESSARY PARTY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE FORECLOSURE ACTION AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
A STIPULATIION OF SETTLEMENT DOES NOT IMPOSE A DUTY UPON A PERSON NOT A PARTY TO THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER CLAIM SHE ADMITTED TO PERMANENT NEGLECT BECAUSE HER COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE; MOTHER ALLEGED COUNSEL DID NOT INFORM HER OF THE RELEVANT BURDENS OF PROOF AT TRIAL (SECOND 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Four-Year Statute of Limitations Under Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act Started to... Failure to Timely Respond to a Notice to Admit Not an Admission of the Matters...