Source: https://www.serverlinks.com/ny-decisions-of-interest/process-server-failed-to-attempt-to-ascertain-defenants-business-address/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:14:46+00:00

Document:
The Defendant moves, by Order to Show Cause, for an order vacating a judgment entered against her, on default, on July 13, 2006, in the sum of $11,933.71. The Plaintiff opposes the motion.
The Defendant alleges that she only recently learned of this action and of the judgment against her when she received a telephone call from her mother who, in January 2007, had received, in the mail, a Property Execution addressed to the Defendant. The Defendant claims that she never received a copy of the Summons and Complaint herein.
The Defendant further alleges, and submits some documents in support thereof, that she paid her entire account with the Plaintiff, in full, and that the balance the Plaintiff shows as due and owing is the result of the Plaintiff’s own internal accounting error.
The Plaintiff alleges that proper service of the Summons and Complaint was made upon the Defendant, pursuant to CPLR §308(4). The Affidavit of Service of the Plaintiff’s process server indicates that he made four (4) attempts to serve the Defendant personally or by serving someone of suitable age and discretion, pursuant to CPLR §308(1) and (2). The first attempt was made on March 10, 2006 at 2:40 p.m.; the second was made on March 11, 2006 at 6:16 p.m.; the third was made on March 14, 2006 at 7:04 a.m.; and the last attempt was made on March 14, 2006 at 6:16 p.m. Each of these attempts was made at 224 Prospect Avenue, Cedarhurst, New York, which the Plaintiff’s process server alleges is “the defendant’s Dwelling Place.” The Affidavit of Service further indicates that on March 14, 2006 at 6:16 p.m a copy of the Summons and Complaint was affixed to the door of the aforesaid address; and, a copy was mailed to the Defendant, at this address, on the same date. Proof of service was then filed on March 21, 2006.
The Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendant lacks a meritorious defense, as the documentation the Defendant submits is incomplete, inaccurate and covers periods of time not involved in this action.
CPLR §308(4) makes clear that substituted service may only be made “by affixing the summons to the door of either the actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode within the state of the person to be served . . . .” The Defendant alleges that she was residing at 4002 Ocean Avenue, Apartment O, East Rockaway, New York at the time the service herein was allegedly effectuated. Moreover, the Defendant alleges that she never lived at 224 Prospect Avenue, Cedarhurst, New York, the address where service was allegedly made, which she acknowledges is her mother’s residence.
In response, the Plaintiff submits two (2) Requests For Change of Address or Boxholder Information Needed for Service of Legal Process, wherein the United States Postal Service indicated that, on February 2, 2006 and on January 26, 2007, the Defendant received mail at 224 Prospect Avenue, Cedarhurst, New York. While the Defendant’s receipt of mail at this address may be some indicia that this is her “dwelling place or usual place of abode,” it may also only indicate that she receives mail at her mother’s house. The Plaintiff does not submit any other evidence that the Defendant dwelt at 224 Prospect Avenue, Cedarhurst, New York at the time service was allegedly made.
Even more problematic for the Plaintiff is the well established principle that a plaintiff may only resort to service pursuant to CPLR §308(4) where service pursuant to CPLR §308(1) or (2) cannot be made with due diligence. County of Nassau v. Letosky, 34 A.D.3d 414, 824 N.Y.S.2d 153 (2nd Dept. 2006); Lemberger v. Kahn, 18 A.D.3d 447, 794 N.Y.S.2d 416 (2nd Dept. 2005); Walker v. Manning, 209 N.Y.S.2d 691, 619 N.Y.S.2d 137 (2nd Dept. 1994); Scott v. Knoblock, 204 A.D.2d 299, 611 N.Y.S.2d 265 (2nd Dept. 1994).
Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment entered against her on July 13, 2006 is granted and the action is dismissed.

References: §308
 §308
 §308
 §308
 §308
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.