You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM DEFENDANT THE COST OF ALTERNATE SERVICE...

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM DEFENDANT THE COST OF ALTERNATE SERVICE BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT (CPLR 312-a) UPON BEING SERVED BY MAIL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to the costs of serving the defendant by alternate means after defendant failed to return the acknowledgment of receipt (of service by mail) was not returned within 30 days:

Plaintiff commenced this negligence action by serving defendants by mail pursuant to CPLR 312-a (a) and thereafter utilized “an alternative method” of service of process when “the acknowledgment of receipt” was not returned by defendants or the other persons set forth in CPLR 312-a (b) within the requisite 30-day period. Plaintiff moved for, inter alia, an immediate judgment in the amount of $110.53, i.e., the amount expended by plaintiff in serving defendants by the alternative method of service of process … . … Supreme Court erred in denying that part of plaintiff’s motion… . Here, plaintiff submitted prima facie evidence that his attorney mailed the requisite documents to defendants pursuant to CPLR 312-a (a), and defendants failed to raise an issue of fact with respect to that service. McGriff v Mallory, 2018 NY Slip Op 03003, Third Dept 4-26-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (COST OF ALTERNATE SERVICE, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM DEFENDANT THE COST OF ALTERNATE SERVICE BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT (CPLR 312-a) UPON BEING SERVED BY MAIL (FOURTH DEPT))/CPLR 312-a  (COST OF ALTERNATE SERVICE, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM DEFENDANT THE COST OF ALTERNATE SERVICE BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT (CPLR 312-a) UPON BEING SERVED BY MAIL (FOURTH DEPT))/ALTERNATIVE SERVICE, COST OF (CIVIL PROCEDURE, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO RECOVER FROM DEFENDANT THE COST OF ALTERNATE SERVICE BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT RETURN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT (CPLR 312-a) UPON BEING SERVED BY MAIL (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
THE TRIAL TESTIMONY RENDERED THE COUNT DUPLICITOUS, NEW TRIAL REQUIRED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE COMPLAINT DID NOT SUFFICIIENTLY ALLEGE DEFENDANT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY FUNCTIONED AS A DE FACTO RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITY BY PROVIDING HEALTH-RELATED SERVICES; THEREFORE THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, AVAILABLE ONLY FOR SUITS AGAINST RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
FOURTEEN YEAR OLD CHILD HAD THE STATUTORY RIGHT TO WAIVE HIS PRESENCE AT THE PERMANENCY HEARING AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO APPEAR, APPEAL HEARD AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (FOURTH DEPT).
Court Properly Awarded Sole Custody to Mother, Despite Expressed Wishes of Adolescent Child
Release Which Specifically Refers to a Particular Incident Relates Solely to that Incident—Where Terms of the Release Are Unambiguous, Extrinsic Evidence Will Not Be Considered
COUNTERCLAIM ALLEGING PLAINTIFFS’ BREACH OF A HOME IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT WAS NOT VIABLE BECAUSE DEFENDANT CONTRACTORS DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE MECHANIC’S LIEN NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF GENERAL BUSINESS LAW 771, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THEIR LIEN LAW CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE CHOICE OF FORUM CLAUSE (ARIZONA) IN THE CONTRACT IS ENFORCEABLE AND IS NOT AFFECTED BY AN ARGUMENT QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF A CHOICE OF LAW CLAUSE; THE FACT THAT THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF WILL HAVE TO TRAVEL TO ARIZONA DOES NOT AFFECT THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THE CHOICE OF FORUM CLAUSE (FOURTH DEPT).
NO SHOWING A REASONABLE RETURN ON THE PROPERTY WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITH A CONFORMING USE, USE VARIANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

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

PARTIES HAD CONSENTED TO PROCEDURES WHICH DEVIATED FROM THE CPLR, SUMMARY JUDGMENT... ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT DIRECTORS ON THE BOARD OF GEROVA DID NOT RESIDE OR DO...