Sanders v. Elie
| Decision Date | 16 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | 2004-06961. |
| Citation | 2006 NY Slip Op 03875,29 A.D.3d 773,816 N.Y.S.2d 509 |
| Parties | JESSIE SANDERS et al., Respondents, v. EDDIE ELIE et al., Defendants, and WARRAICH SHAHID, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the motion is granted, the cross motion is denied, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.
The Supreme Court should have granted the appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction because the plaintiffs failed to meet the "due diligence" requirement for so-called "nail and mail" service under CPLR 308 (4). Moreover, there is no indication that the process server made any attempt to locate the appellant's business address or to effectuate personal service thereat (see Earle v Valente, 302 AD2d 353 [2003]; Annis v Long, 298 AD2d 340 [2002]).
The Supreme Court should have denied the plaintiffs' cross motion for relief pursuant to CPLR 308 (5) because they failed to demonstrate that service upon the appellant by any of the ordinary methods was impracticable (see Coffey v Russo, 231 AD2d 546, 547 [1996]; Tetro v Tizov, 184 AD2d 633, 635 [1992]).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Serraro v. Staropoli
...Waterman v. Jones, 46 A.D.3d at 66, 843 N.Y.S.2d 462; County of Nassau v. Letosky, 34 A.D.3d at 415, 824 N.Y.S.2d 153; Sanders v. Elie, 29 A.D.3d 773, 774, 816 N.Y.S.2d 509; O'Connell v. Post, 27 A.D.3d 630, 631, 811 N.Y.S.2d 441; Gurevitch v. Goodman, 269 A.D.2d at 355–356, 702 N.Y.S.2d 63......
-
Brown v. A 1998 Dodge, Vin No. 1B7GG22X1WS701157
...Joint Venture, L.P., Appellant, v. Marcus Kierstedt, 119 AD3d 627, 990 N.Y.S.2d 522 [2d Dept 2014] ; Sanders v. Elie, 29 AD3d 773, 816 N.Y.S.2d 509 [2d Dept 2006] ). Further, absent any evidence that the process server attempted to determine that the address where service was attempted was,......
-
Materials Testing Lab, Inc. v. Agosto, 2007 NY Slip Op 32477(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 8/3/2007)
...308 (1), (2) and (4) is impracticable at this time, the motion for service pursuant to CPLR 308(5) will be granted (see, Sanders v. Elie, 29 A.D.3d 773, 816 N.Y.S.2d 509; Staton v. Omwukeme, 277 A.D.2d 443, 715 N.Y.S.2d 908; Corbo v. Stephens, 177 Misc.2d 338, 677 N.Y.S.2d 211 affirmed 272 ......
-
Ellis v. Fortune
...place of employment is fatal to a finding of due diligence as required by CPLR § 308(4) (Id.; see also, Sanders v. Elie, 29 AD3d 773, 816 N.Y.S.2d 509 [2d Dept 2006] ). Further, absent any evidence that the process server attempted to determine that the address where service was attempted w......