You are here: / / THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN LOCATING THE DEFENDANT...
,

THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN LOCATING THE DEFENDANT BEFORE RESORTING TO “NAIL AND MAIL” SERVICE OF PROCESS; COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint should have been dismissed because plaintiff did not demonstrate the process server exercised diligence because resorting to “nail and mail” service:

The due diligence requirement of CPLR 308(4) must be strictly observed, given the reduced likelihood that a summons served pursuant to that section will be received” … . “For the purpose of satisfying the ‘due diligence’ requirement of CPLR 308(4), it must be shown that the process server made genuine inquiries about the defendant’s whereabouts and place of employment” … .

Here, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the process server acted with due diligence before relying on affix and mail service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) … . The process server averred that he made two attempts to personally serve the defendant at his home before affixing the summons and complaint to the door of the defendant’s home. There was no evidence that the process server made any genuine inquiries about the defendant’s whereabouts and place of employment, which was known to the plaintiff. Niebling v Pioreck, 2023 NY Slip Op 06526, Second Dept 12-20-23

Practice Point: A process server’s failure to exercise due diligence  in trying to locate a defendant before resorting to “nail and mail” service, including making inquiries about defendant’s whereabouts and place of employment, will result in dismissal of the complaint.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT IN MAKING MORTGAGE PAYMENTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SUBMISSION OF THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
LESSOR ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DECLARING LESSEE’S INSURANCE CARRIER WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND LESSOR IN SLIP AND FALL CASE.
Release Null and Void Under the General Obligations Law–Plaintiff Paid a Fee to Participate in the Basketball Game In Which He Was Injured
CITY NOT LIABLE FOR AN INMATE ON INMATE ASSAULT, ATTACK NOT FORESEEABLE (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER WAS AWARE OF THE GROUND FOR DISQUALIFYING FATHER’S ATTORNEY FOR YEARS BEFORE THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY WAS MADE; MOTHER THEREBY WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO FATHER’S COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A PLANK ON A SCAFFOLD HE WAS ERECTING BROKE (SECOND DEPT).
NOTICE OF CLAIM REQUIREMENT FOR LABOR LAW ACTION AGAINST CITY NOT PREEMPTED BY LONGSHOREMAN’S AND HARBOR WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ACT.

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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT DRIVER, WHO ALLEGEDLY MADE A TURN IN FRONT... RESTORATION OF AN ACTION TO THE ACTIVE CALENDAR AFTER FAILURE TO FILE A NOTE...