You are here: / / THE PROCESS SERVER KNEW WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED AND WORKED AND MADE SEVERAL...
, ,

THE PROCESS SERVER KNEW WHERE DEFENDANT LIVED AND WORKED AND MADE SEVERAL UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS TO SERVE DEFENDANT AT HOME; WITHOUT MAKING ANY ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANT AT WORK, THE PROCESS SERVER RESORTED TO “NAIL AND MAIL;” THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT DEMONTRATE “DUE DILIGENCE;” THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court in this foreclosure action, determined the process server did not demonstrate due diligence in attempting to serve defendant, therefore the court did not acquire personal jurisdiction:

“Service of process upon a natural person must be made in strict compliance with the statutory methods of service set forth in CPLR 308” … . “Service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) may be used only where personal service under CPLR 308(1) and (2) cannot be made with due diligence” … . “The term due diligence is not defined by statute, and is interpreted on a case-by-case basis” … . To satisfy the “due diligence” requirement, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the process server made genuine inquiries about the defendant’s whereabouts and place of employment … . “The failure to serve process in an action leaves the court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and all subsequent proceedings are thereby rendered null and void” … .

… [T]he process server’s prior attempts at service did not demonstrate due diligence. Two out of three of the process server’s prior attempts at personal delivery at the defendant’s residence occurred during weekday hours when it could reasonably have been expected that the defendant was either working or in transit to or from work. The prior attempts were made on Thursday, April 17, 2008, at 6:15 p.m.; on Saturday, April 19, 2008, at 1:30 p.m.; and on Monday, April 21, 2008, at 8:20 a.m. The Saturday attempt occurred at a time when the defendant may have had reasons not to be home. The process server averred that a neighbor confirmed that the defendant resided at that address, but gave a negative reply when asked if the neighbor was aware of the defendant’s normal routine and place of business. Attached to the affidavit of service were the results of a “people at work” search, which revealed a company address for the defendant. Yet the process server made no inquiries about the defendant at that address before resorting to affix and mail service. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff failed to act with due diligence before relying on affix and mail service pursuant to CPLR 308(4) … . Bank of N.Y. Mellon v DeFilippo, 2025 NY Slip Op 05933, Second Dept 10-29-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for insight into what constitutes “due diligence” in attempting to serve a defendant. Here several failed attempts at defendant’s residence was not enough. The process server did not attempt to serve defendant at work before resorting to “nail and mail.”​

 

You might also like
NEITHER A CERTIFICATION ORDER NOR A STIPULATION EXTENDING THE DATE FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF A 90-DAY NOTICE; THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION WAS INVALID; THE MOTION TO RESTORE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK SENT THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO THE TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE, A VIOLATION OF RPAPL 1304; FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT). ​
STATUTORY CRITERIA OF CPLR 3216 NOT MET, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED ACTION FOR NEGLECT TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).
A JUDGE SHOULD NOT, SUA SPONTE, ORDER THE DISMISSAL OF A COMPLAINT ABSENT “EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES,” NOT PRESENT HERE (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE MUNICIPALITY, PROPERTY OWNER, LISTING BROKER, LISTING AGENT AND SNOW REMOVAL CONTRACTOR HAD NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION TO REMOVE SNOW FROM THE SIDEWALK AT THE TIME PLAINTIFF FELL, NO ONE OWED A DUTY TO THE PLAINTIFF.
RULING THAT DEFENDANT COULD BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THREE PRIOR GUN-RELATED CONVICTIONS IF HE TESTIFIED THE SHOOTING WAS AN ACCIDENT DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF THE RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (SECOND DEPT).
(HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DEFENSE WITNESS ABOUT HER GANG AFFILIATION, GANG MEMBERSHIP HAD NO RELATIONSHIP TO THE CHARGES (SECOND DEPT).
ONCE THE JUDGE DETERMINED THERE WERE NECESSARY PARTIES WHICH WERE NOT JOINED, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED THE MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT; THE NECESSARY PARTIES SHOULD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND SUMMONED IF POSSIBLE; MATTER REMITTED (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

CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE ALLEGATIONS WILL NOT SUPPORT PIERCING THE CORPORATE... THE REFEREE’S REPORT WAS BASED UPON BUSINESS RECORDS WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED;...