Methods of Service of Legal Papers on a Person: New York

Understanding the intricacies of service methods in New York is crucial for those sued for debt to determine if they were properly served and to ensure timely responses, avoiding severe legal repercussions. This knowledge empowers defendants, aiding in informed defense strategies and preventing future legal oversights.

5 Tips for Proper Service in New York Lawsuits

1. Personal Service - Ideal Choice: Deliver Summons and Complaints directly to the defendant for effective and straightforward service.

2. Substituted Service - Practical Alternative: When personal service isn't feasible, utilize substituted service by delivering papers to a suitable individual at the defendant's residence or workplace.

3. Mailing the Summons - Coupled with Substituted Service or Nail and Mail: Mail them to the defendant's last known address, ensuring they're labeled "personal and confidential" and sent via first-class mail.

4. Serving an Agent - Designated Contact: If available, serve the defendant's designated agent, verifying their authority and compliance with New York law.

5. Nail and Mail Service - Last resort: When other methods aren't possible, use nail and mail service (CPLR 308(4)) by affixing the Summons to the defendant's door and mailing a copy to their last known address.​

"Service" Under NY Law Stated Another Way

In order to properly commence a lawsuit, the plaintiff must serve a Summons and Complaint or a Summons with Notice upon the defendant. Proper service under CPLR 308 can be effectuated in a few different ways, including:

• Personally, by delivering the papers to the Defendant;

• Substituted service, by delivering papers to a person of suitable age and discretion at the actual place of business, dwelling place, or usual place of abode of the person to be served

and

by either mailing the summons to the person to be served at his or her last known residence or by mailing the summons by first class mail to the person to be served at his or her actual place of business in an envelope labeled personal and confidential with no indication that the enclosed documents are pertaining to a lawsuit; or

• Serving an Agent designated to accept service by the person to be served.

​

However, what happens if the Plaintiff cannot complete service using one of the above methods? An alternative method of service is allowed under CPLR 308(4) [1], commonly referred to as nail and mail service.

Under CPLR 308(4), proper service may be effectuated when both the summons is affixed to the door of the defendant's actual place of business or residence, AND the summons is mailed to the defendant's last known residence or actual place of business, hence the "nail and mail" moniker. 

Marital Home Remains "Usual Place of Abode" During Temporary Separation

A husband who temporarily left his marital home during a trial separation but lived there both before and after service was properly served at that location under CPLR 308(2). The defendant had lived in the marital home since 1985 and characterized his absence as a "trial separation." He later returned to the home and even used it as his address in subsequent legal filings.

Key Legal Principles:

1. The term "usual place of abode" is not synonymous with "actual dwelling place" and implies a degree of permanence and stability
2. A spouse's temporary absence from the marital home during transitory marital difficulties does not negate it being their "usual place of abode" for service purposes
3. When a married person provisionally moves out on a "trial" basis, the marital residence may still properly be considered their "usual place of abode"

Conclusion: A person's temporary physical absence from a residence does not automatically make service at that location improper, particularly when the absence is provisional and the person maintains connections to the property. The key factor is whether the location maintains the character of permanence and stability as the person's usual abode.

Citation: Federal Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v Venticinque, 89 NY2d 412 (1997).

Third Party's Misrepresentation About Defendant's Residence Does Not Make Service Valid Under CPLR 308(2)

A mortgage foreclosure case where process server relied on defendant's daughter's statement that defendant lived at the service address, when in fact defendant had lived at a different address for 40 years. The court found that despite the process server's reasonable reliance on the daughter's representation, service was invalid because the location was not actually defendant's dwelling place or usual place of abode.

Key Legal Principles:

1. A third party's misrepresentation about where a defendant lives cannot override CPLR 308(2)'s requirement that service be made at defendant's actual dwelling place or usual place of abode
2. For service to be valid under CPLR 308(2), the service location must actually be defendant's dwelling place regardless of what anyone tells the process server
3. Only the defendant's own misleading conduct about their residence can trigger estoppel from challenging improper service location

Conclusion:
A process server's reasonable belief about a defendant's residence based on third-party statements does not make service valid if the location is not actually the defendant's dwelling place or usual place of abode as required by CPLR 308(2). The statutory requirements for proper service location cannot be overcome by reliance on third-party representations.

Citation: Everbank v Kelly, 203 AD3d 138 (2d Dept 2022) (holding that daughter's representation that father lived at service address did not make service valid under CPLR 308(2) when evidence showed father actually lived elsewhere, as third-party statements cannot override statutory requirement that service be made at defendant's actual dwelling place)

​