Contractual Consent Of Service: The Hidden Perils For Out-of-State Borrowers

The following blog post delves into CPLR § 313 and § 308(5), exploring their application in serving out-of-state defendants in New York commercial disputes, with a particular focus on the validity of email service and the challenges of alternative service methods in the digital age. In the high-stakes arena of interstate lending, New York's CPLR § 313 emerges as a potent weapon for creditors, but its reach in binding out-of-state borrowers to New York courts remains a contentious legal battleground.

What is Alternative Service?

Alternative service refers to methods of serving legal documents on a party that differ from the standard or traditional methods prescribed by law. In the context of New York civil procedure, particularly under CPLR § 308(5), alternative service becomes an option when traditional methods of service are impracticable.

Alternative service methods may include:

1. Email service: In some cases, courts have allowed service via email when it can be shown that the defendant regularly uses the email address.
2. Service by mail: This could include certified or registered mail, particularly in cases involving out-of-state defendants.
3. Publication: In rare cases, service by publication in a newspaper may be allowed.
4. Other creative methods: Courts may authorize other methods that are reasonably calculated to give notice to the defendant.

It's important to note that alternative service typically requires court approval. The party seeking to use alternative service must demonstrate that traditional methods are impracticable and that the proposed alternative method is likely to actually inform the defendant of the pending action.

In the context of out-of-state defendants, the interplay between CPLR § 313 and § 308(5) becomes crucial. While these provisions allow for flexibility in serving out-of-state parties, they still require compliance with due process standards and often face heightened scrutiny when the only connection to New York is a forum selection clause in a contract.

Contractually agreed service methods aren't technically "alternative service" under CPLR § 308(5), which typically requires court approval. Instead, they operate under the principle of contractual freedom.

What is "Impracticability" under CPLR § 308(5) Needed for Alternative Service

In the context of CPLR § 308(5), "impracticability" refers to situations where the standard methods of service outlined in CPLR § 308(1), (2), and (4) cannot be effectuated or would be unreasonably difficult to accomplish. The term "impracticable" is not capable of easy definition and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case (Liebeskind v Liebeskind, 86 AD2d 207, 449 NYS2d 226 [1st Dept 1982], affd 58 NY2d 858 [1983] [holding that the meaning of "impracticable" depends on the facts and circumstances of each case]).

Key points about impracticability under CPLR § 308(5):

1. Burden of Proof: The plaintiff must establish by affidavit of one with personal knowledge that service by other methods is impracticable (Badenhop v Badenhop, 84 AD2d 771, 444 NYS2d 112 [2d Dept 1981] [requiring affidavit to establish impracticability]).
2. Showing of Efforts: A plaintiff must make some showing that the other prescribed methods of service could not be made, detailing the steps taken to effect service (Markoff v South Nassau Community Hosp., 91 AD2d 1064, 458 NYS2d 672 [2d Dept 1983], affd 61 NY2d 283 [1984] [emphasizing the need to establish precisely what steps were taken to effect service]).
3. No Due Diligence Requirement: An applicant is not required to prove due diligence or show actual prior attempts to serve under each method provided in the statute (Tremont Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v Ndanusa, 144 AD2d 660, 535 NYS2d 8 [2d Dept 1988] [holding that prior attempts at service did not have to be shown for an order of publication under CPLR 308(5)]).
4. Futility of Other Methods: The court-directed method may be used where other attempts would have been futile (Liebeskind v Liebeskind, supra [allowing court-directed service where other attempts would have been futile]).
5. Circumstances Demonstrating Impracticability: Service may be deemed impracticable when the defendant cannot be found or their address is unknown (Gibson v Salvatore, 102 AD2d 861, 476 NYS2d 930 [2d Dept 1984] [finding impracticability where defendant could not be found]).
6. Foreign Residency: A defendant's residence in a foreign country, standing alone, does not necessarily warrant court-directed service (JPMorgan Chase Bank v Kothary, 178 AD3d 791, 113 NYS3d 738 [2d Dept 2019] [holding that foreign residence alone does not justify alternative service]).

It's important to note that even when impracticability is established, any alternative method of service approved by the court must still satisfy due process requirements by being reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant of the pending action.

Is "Alternative Service" the Same as "Substituted Service"?

No, "alternative service" and "substituted service" are not exactly the same thing, although they are sometimes used interchangeably, which can cause confusion. Here's the distinction:

Substituted Service: This typically refers to specific methods of service authorized by statute as alternatives to personal delivery. In New York, under CPLR 308, substituted service methods include:

• Deliver and mail (CPLR 308(2))
• Nail and mail (CPLR 308(4))

These methods are prescribed by law and can be used without court permission when the conditions specified in the statute are met.

Alternative Service: This generally refers to methods of service authorized by a court under CPLR 308(5) when the prescribed methods (including substituted service) are impracticable. It's a broader term that can encompass various methods tailored to the specific circumstances of a case, such as:

• Service by email
• Service through social media
• Publication
• Any other method the court deems appropriate

Alternative service requires a court order and is typically used as a last resort when other methods have failed or are likely to fail.

Is "Expedient Service" the Same as "Alternative Service"?

Yes, under CPLR 308(5), "expedient service" is essentially the same as "alternative service." These terms are often used interchangeably in legal contexts when referring to service methods authorized by the court under this provision.

CPLR 308(5) states that personal service can be made "in such manner as the court, upon motion without notice, directs, if service is impracticable under paragraphs one, two and four of this section."

This provision allows the court to devise and authorize a method of service that is tailored to the specific circumstances of the case when traditional methods of service (such as personal delivery, delivery and mail, or nail and mail) are impracticable.

The term "expedient service" emphasizes the practical, efficient nature of this court-ordered method, while "alternative service" highlights that it's an alternative to the standard methods outlined in the other subsections of CPLR 308.

Both terms refer to the same legal concept: a court-approved method of service under CPLR 308(5) when other methods are impracticable. The choice of terminology often depends on the preference of the court or the attorneys involved, but they functionally mean the same thing in this context.

What is CPLR § 313, and How Does it Affect Me as a Borrower?

CPLR § 313 is a New York law that explains how you can be legally notified about a lawsuit if you live outside of New York. This is important if you've taken out a loan with a New York lender and are now being sued. Here's what you need to know:

1. You Can Be Sued in New York: Even if you live in another state, you might still be sued in New York if your loan agreement allows it.
2. How You Might Be Notified: You could receive legal papers the same way you would if you lived in New York. This might include someone handing you the papers in person or leaving them at your home.
3. International Borrowers: If you live in another country, there might be special rules about how you can be notified.
4. Who Can Deliver the Papers: The person bringing you the legal papers could be from New York, your local area, or even a lawyer where you live.
5. Challenging the Notification: If you think you weren't properly notified about the lawsuit, you might be able to challenge it. This could delay or even stop the case.
6. If You've Passed Away: In case of death, the law allows for notifying your estate's representative.

Understanding this law is crucial if you're a borrower outside New York facing a lawsuit from a New York lender. It determines how you'll be officially informed about the legal action against you.

Elements of CPLR 313:

• A person domiciled in New York or subject to the jurisdiction of New York courts under CPLR 301 or 302 may be served with summons outside the state.
• Service outside the state must be made in the same manner as service within the state.
• Service may be made by:
  1. Any person authorized to make service within New York who is a resident of New York
  2. Any person authorized to make service by the laws of the state, territory, possession, or country where service is made
  3. Any duly qualified attorney, solicitor, barrister, or equivalent in the jurisdiction where service is made

CPLR § 313 Statute Word-For-Word

§ 313. Service without the state giving personal jurisdiction

A person domiciled in the state or subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the state under section 301 or 302, or his executor or administrator, may be served with the summons without the state, in the same manner as service is made within the state, by any person authorized to make service within the state who is a resident of the state or by any person authorized to make service by the laws of the state, territory, possession or country in which service is made or by any duly qualified attorney, solicitor, barrister, or equivalent in such jurisdiction.

What is the Purpose of CPLR § 313?

The purpose of CPLR 313 is to facilitate service of process on defendants who are subject to New York's jurisdiction but are physically located outside the state. Specifically, CPLR 313 aims to:

1. Extend New York's service methods beyond state borders: It allows for service outside New York using the same methods that would be used within the state.
2. Ensure jurisdictional reach: It applies to persons domiciled in New York or subject to New York court jurisdiction under CPLR 301 or 302, including their executors or administrators.
3. Provide flexibility in who can serve process: It authorizes service by New York residents authorized to serve within the state, persons authorized by the laws of the jurisdiction where service is made, or qualified legal professionals in that jurisdiction.
4. Simplify out-of-state service procedures: By allowing the use of familiar New York service methods, it removes potential complications that might arise from differing service requirements in other jurisdictions.
5. "Remove state lines" for service purposes: The statute essentially treats service outside New York the same as service within the state, as long as the defendant is subject to New York's jurisdiction.
6. Enhance the possibility of acquiring personal jurisdiction: It advances the statute's purpose of making it easier to serve defendants who may be physically outside New York but still subject to its courts' jurisdiction.

In essence, CPLR 313 is designed to streamline and standardize the process of serving defendants outside New York state, ensuring that New York courts can effectively exercise their jurisdiction over parties who may not be physically present within state borders.

Explanation with Examples:

CPLR 313 essentially "removes state lines" for the purpose of serving process on defendants who are subject to New York's jurisdiction but are physically located outside the state. The statute allows for service to be made using the same methods as would be used within New York, regardless of where the defendant is located.

1. Methods of Service: The statute incorporates New York's service methodologies, such as those found in CPLR 308, 309, 310, 311, and 312-a. For example, personal service, substitute service, or nail and mail service could be used on an out-of-state defendant just as they would be used within New York.
2. Sunday Service Prohibition: Interestingly, New York's prohibition on Sunday service applies even when service is made out of state under CPLR 313. This was established in Eisenberg v. Citation-Langley Corp., 99 A.D.2d 700, 471 N.Y.S.2d 595 (1st Dep't 1984).
3. Service on Deceased Defendants: CPLR 313 allows for service on out-of-state executors or administrators of deceased defendants. In Rosenfeld v. Hotel Corp. of America, 20 N.Y.2d 25, 281 N.Y.S.2d 308, 228 N.E.2d 374 (1967), the Court of Appeals held that no separate basis of jurisdiction is required over such fiduciaries if the decedent was subject to personal jurisdiction under CPLR 302.
4. Who Can Serve Process: The statute provides flexibility regarding who can serve process out of state. In American Home Assurance Co. v. Morris Industrial Builders, Inc., 176 A.D.2d 541, 575 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1st Dep't 1991), appeal dismissed, 79 N.Y.2d 851, 580 N.Y.S.2d 201, 588 N.E.2d 99 (1992), the court held that service by an adult who resided in the state where service was made, rather than in New York, was a mere irregularity that could be corrected or disregarded in the absence of prejudice.
5. International Service: When service must be made in a foreign country, CPLR 313 may have to yield to international treaties such as the Hague Service Convention. In Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694, 108 S.Ct. 2104, 100 L.Ed.2d 722 (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court held that compliance with the Hague Convention is mandatory in state court proceedings if the nation where service is made is a signatory.
6. Service on Foreign Corporations: In some cases, service on a foreign corporation can be made within the United States, avoiding the need for international service. In Taca Int'l Airlines. S.A. v. Rolls Royce of England, Ltd., 15 N.Y.2d 97, 256 N.Y.S.2d 129, 204 N.E.2d 329 (1965), the Court of Appeals held that personal delivery to an officer or managing agent of a subsidiary in New York could constitute valid service on the foreign parent corporation if the subsidiary was a "mere department" of the parent.
7. Service in Non-Treaty Countries: In countries not subject to international service treaties, New York methods of service can be used freely. In Morgenthau v. Avion Resources Ltd., 11 N.Y.3d 383, 869 N.Y.S.2d 886, 898 N.E.2d 929 (2008), the Court of Appeals held that service in Brazil using New York-authorized methods was valid, even though it did not comply with Brazilian law, as no principle of international comity required deference to local service methods in the absence of a binding treaty.

These examples illustrate the broad scope and application of CPLR 313 in facilitating service of process on out-of-state defendants subject to New York's jurisdiction.

Alternative Service Under CPLR § 308(5) and Its Interaction with CPLR § 313

CPLR § 308(5) provides for alternative service methods when traditional methods of service are impracticable. This section allows the court to direct an alternative method of service upon motion without notice.

• Applicability to Out-of-State Service: CPLR § 313 incorporates the service methods used within New York for out-of-state service. This likely includes the alternative service provisions of § 308(5).
• Court Discretion: When serving out-of-state defendants under § 313, courts may have the discretion to order alternative service methods as provided in § 308(5) if traditional methods prove impracticable.
• International Considerations: In cases involving international service, the interaction between § 308(5) and § 313 must be considered in light of any applicable international treaties, such as the Hague Service Convention.
• Flexibility for Unique Situations: The combination of these sections provides flexibility in serving elusive defendants or those in hard-to-reach locations outside New York.
• Due Process Requirements: Any alternative method ordered under § 308(5) for out-of-state service must still satisfy due process requirements, ensuring the defendant receives adequate notice of the proceedings.
• Case-by-Case Basis: Courts would likely consider the specific circumstances of each case when determining whether to allow alternative service methods for out-of-state defendants.

Contractual Alternative Service: Can Parties Bypass Court Approval Under CPLR 308(5)?

While CPLR 308(5) typically requires court approval for alternative service methods, the situation becomes more nuanced when parties contractually agree to specific service methods, particularly in commercial contexts. This raises an important question: Can parties effectively "invoke" CPLR 308(5) through private agreement without prior court approval?

1. Contractual Agreements: Many commercial contracts, especially those involving out-of-state parties, include clauses specifying agreed-upon methods of service, such as certified or registered mail.
2. Court Interpretation: New York courts have generally been receptive to honoring such contractual agreements. The case of Alfred E. Mann Living Trust v. ETIRC Aviation S.A.R.L., 78 A.D.3d 137 (1st Dep't 2010) suggests that parties can contractually waive formal service requirements.
3. Interaction with CPLR 313: When combined with CPLR 313, which allows out-of-state service using New York methods, these contractual agreements may effectively create a form of alternative service without explicit court order.
4. Due Process Considerations: Courts are likely to uphold these agreements as long as they satisfy due process requirements by providing reasonable notice to the defendant.
5. Limitations: This approach may be more readily accepted in commercial contexts where parties are sophisticated and have equal bargaining power.
6. Potential Challenges: While generally honored, these agreements could potentially be challenged if they're deemed unconscionable or if they fail to provide adequate notice.
7. Best Practices: To ensure enforceability, parties should ensure that agreed-upon service methods are clearly defined in the contract and provide reliable means of giving notice.
8. Judicial Discretion: Even with contractual agreements, courts retain discretion to evaluate the effectiveness and fairness of the agreed service method.

In essence, while CPLR 308(5) typically requires court approval, contractual agreements for alternative service methods, especially in commercial contexts, may effectively bypass this requirement. However, these agreements operate more under the principle of contractual freedom rather than as a direct invocation of CPLR 308(5). Courts are likely to honor such agreements, particularly between sophisticated parties, as long as they satisfy due process requirements and provide reasonable notice.

If you need help, call us at (888) 271-7109, or complete this form.

Contractual Consent vs. Statutory Jurisdiction: Unpacking the Alfred E. Mann Decision

It does not appear that Alfred E. Mann Living Trust v. ETIRC Aviation S.A.R.L. directly addresses the scenario of out-of-state defendants over whom personal jurisdiction did not otherwise exist under CPLR 301 and 302. The key points to consider are:

1. In this case, the defendant had already consented to jurisdiction in New York courts through the contract. The court noted that the guaranty contained a "comprehensive consent to jurisdiction" clause.
2. The case focused primarily on whether contractual waiver of service requirements could override the Hague Convention requirements for international service.
3. The court did not specifically address the question of using such contractual provisions to establish jurisdiction over parties who would not otherwise be subject to New York jurisdiction under CPLR 301 and 302.
4. The case involved sophisticated business parties in an international commercial transaction, not consumers or small businesses.

Therefore, while this case supports the general principle that parties can contractually agree to alternative service methods and waive certain formal service requirements, it does not directly address or endorse using such agreements to establish jurisdiction over out-of-state consumers or small businesses who would not otherwise be subject to New York jurisdiction.

The application of this principle to collection companies binding out-of-state consumers and small businesses to New York jurisdiction solely through contract, when jurisdiction does not otherwise exist, would likely require additional legal analysis and potentially raise different legal and policy considerations not addressed in this specific case.

Jurisdiction vs. Choice of Law: Understanding the Distinction in New York Courts

In the complex world of civil litigation, two key concepts often come into play when dealing with contracts involving parties from different states: jurisdiction and choice of law. A recent New York case, Putnam Leasing Co., Inc. v Pappas, 46 Misc 3d 195 (NY Dist Ct 2014), provides an excellent illustration of how these concepts can operate independently.

• Jurisdiction: The "Power to Hear the Case": Jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to hear and decide a case. In Putnam, the New York court upheld its jurisdiction over the case based on a forum selection clause in the contract, even though neither party had significant connections to New York. This demonstrates that parties can agree to grant a particular court jurisdiction through contractual provisions.
• Choice of Law: Which "State's Laws Apply": Choice of law, on the other hand, determines which state's substantive laws will govern the dispute. In Putnam, despite having jurisdiction, the court decided to apply Connecticut law to the substantive issues of the case. Why? Because the contract and parties had more significant connections to Connecticut than to New York.

The Key Takeaway:  The Putnam case illustrates that a court can have jurisdiction to hear a case but still apply another state's laws to resolve the dispute. This distinction is crucial for attorneys and parties involved in interstate contracts. Just because you've agreed to litigate in a particular state doesn't necessarily mean that state's laws will apply to your dispute.

Forum Selection Clauses: Choosing Your Battleground in New York Cases

In the world of contract law, a forum selection clause is like choosing the arena for a potential legal showdown before the fight even starts. But what exactly is a forum selection clause, and why should New York businesses and attorneys care about them?

What is a Forum Selection Clause? Simply put, a forum selection clause is a contractual provision that designates a specific court or jurisdiction where any disputes arising from the contract must be litigated. It's essentially an agreement between the parties about where they'll duke it out legally if things go south.

Why Are They Important?

1. Predictability: Forum selection clauses provide certainty about where potential litigation will occur, allowing parties to plan accordingly.
2. Convenience: Parties can choose a forum that's convenient for them, potentially saving time and money.
3. Expertise: Some courts may have more experience with certain types of disputes, making them a preferred choice.

New York's Stance New York courts generally respect forum selection clauses, viewing them as a valid exercise of contractual freedom. The recent case of Putnam Leasing Co., Inc. v Pappas, 46 Misc 3d 195 (NY Dist Ct 2014), reaffirmed this stance, upholding a clause that selected New York as the forum despite the parties and transaction having no other connection to the state.

A Word of Caution: While powerful, forum selection clauses aren't absolute. Courts may disregard them if they're deemed unreasonable, unjust, or the result of fraud or overreaching. Additionally, as Putnam demonstrated, choosing a forum doesn't necessarily mean that forum's laws will apply to the dispute.

Alternative Service Under CPLR 308(5) for Out-of-State Defendants: The Limits of Contractual Forum Selection"

CPLR 308(5) provides for alternative methods of service "if service is impracticable under paragraphs one, two and four of this section." This has been interpreted to allow for innovative service methods, including email, when traditional methods are shown to be impracticable. However, the application of this provision to out-of-state defendants with no other connection to New York beyond a forum selection clause in a lending contract raises several important considerations:

1. Personal Jurisdiction Requirement: CPLR 308 generally presupposes that the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The mere existence of a forum selection clause in a contract may not, on its own, confer personal jurisdiction sufficient to justify alternative service under CPLR 308(5). Courts have emphasized the need for a nexus to New York beyond just contractual agreement (Everbank v. Kelly, 203 A.D.3d 138, 163 N.Y.S.3d 88 (2d Dep't 2022)).
2. Impracticability Standard: To justify alternative service under CPLR 308(5), the plaintiff must demonstrate that service by other means is impracticable. In cases involving out-of-state defendants, courts have been more inclined to find impracticability when the defendant resides in a foreign country, especially one not party to the Hague Convention (Meagan R. v. Mansour, 210 A.D.3d 1525, 179 N.Y.S.3d 512 (4th Dep't 2022)). However, mere difficulty in serving an out-of-state defendant within the U.S. may not meet this standard.
3. Due Process Considerations: Any alternative method of service must satisfy due process requirements by being "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action" (Snyder v. Alternate Energy Inc., 19 Misc.3d 954, 857 N.Y.S.2d 442 (2008)). Courts have approved email service when it can be shown that the defendant regularly uses the email address (NMR E-Tailing LLC v. Oak Investment Partners, 216 A.D.3d 572, 190 N.Y.S.3d 311 (2023)).
4. Limitations on Contractual Agreements: While courts have recognized contractual waivers of certain service requirements (Alfred E. Mann Living Trust v. ETIRC Aviation S.A.R.L., 78 A.D.3d 137 (1st Dep't 2010)), these have typically involved sophisticated commercial parties. Courts may be less inclined to enforce such agreements against individual consumers or small businesses.
5. Specific Authorization: Courts have been reluctant to approve alternative service methods that are not specifically authorized by statute or contract. For instance, in Contractors Compensation Trust v. $49.99 Sewer Man, Inc., 74 Misc.3d 385, 161 N.Y.S.3d 726 (2022), the court declined to allow re-service by summons with notice when the action had been commenced by summons and complaint.

While CPLR 308(5) allows for alternative service methods, including email and mail, when traditional methods are impracticable, its application to out-of-state defendants based solely on a forum selection clause in a lending contract is questionable. Courts are likely to require a stronger nexus to New York and a clear showing of impracticability before authorizing such service. Additionally, due process considerations and the nature of the parties involved (e.g., consumers vs. commercial entities) may influence a court's willingness to approve alternative service in these circumstances. Parties seeking to use alternative service methods in such cases should be prepared to demonstrate both the impracticability of traditional methods and that the proposed method is reasonably calculated to provide notice to the defendant.

Case Summaries about Showing Impracticability Sufficient to Justify Alternative Service

CASE 1: Improper Use of CPLR 308(5) for Substituted Service in Divorce Action

In a divorce action, the Appellate Division, Second Department addressed the improper use of CPLR 308(5) for substituted service when the defendant's out-of-state address was known. The court reversed the lower court's decision that had authorized substituted service and determined that jurisdiction over the defendants had not been acquired.

Key Legal Principles:

1. CPLR 308(5) authorizes substituted service only when service is impracticable under other methods, and this determination should be made ex parte upon affidavits.
2. When a defendant's out-of-state address is known, service should be attempted at that address pursuant to CPLR 302(b) and CPLR 313 before resorting to substituted service.
3. A single unsuccessful attempt at service at each of a defendant's known addresses is insufficient to justify the use of substituted service under CPLR 308(5).

Conclusion: The main takeaway is that courts should not authorize substituted service under CPLR 308(5) without a sufficient showing of impracticability of other service methods, especially when the defendant's out-of-state address is known. This case emphasizes the importance of exhausting traditional service methods before seeking court-ordered alternative service.

Case Citation: Badenhop v Badenhop, 84 AD2d 771, 444 NYS2d 112 (2d Dept 1981)

CASE 2: Expedient Service Under CPLR 308(5) When Other Methods Are Impracticable

The Appellate Division addressed whether an ex parte order authorizing expedient service under CPLR 308(5) was proper in a divorce action where the wife fled the jurisdiction to avoid service before the Equitable Distribution Law took effect. The court held that expedient service was warranted when other methods of service were impracticable, even without showing prior attempts at service.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Expedient service under CPLR 308(5) requires only a showing that other methods of service are impracticable, not that prior attempts at service were made.
2. The standard for "impracticability" under CPLR 308(5) is less stringent than the "due diligence" required for nail and mail service under CPLR 308(4).
3. A defendant's deliberate evasion of service can justify a finding that other methods of service are impracticable, warranting expedient service.

Conclusion: The main takeaway is that courts have discretion to authorize expedient service under CPLR 308(5) when circumstances make other methods impracticable, particularly when a defendant deliberately evades service. This decision emphasizes the flexibility of CPLR 308(5) in addressing unpredictable situations where traditional service methods would be futile.

Case citation: Liebeskind v Liebeskind, 86 AD2d 207, 449 NYS2d 226 (1st Dept 1982), affd 58 NY2d 858 (1983)

CASE 3: Validity of Alternative Service Under CPLR 308(5) When Traditional Methods Are Impracticable

The Appellate Division addressed the validity of alternative service methods in a negligence action where traditional service attempts failed due to the defendant's unknown whereabouts. The court upheld the lower court's order allowing service on the defendant's insurance-appointed attorney under CPLR 308(5), while dismissing previous ineffective service attempts.

Key Legal Principles:

1. "Nail and mail" service under CPLR 308(4) requires affixing the summons to the defendant's actual dwelling place, not just the last known address.
2. Service under CPLR 308(5) may be authorized when there is sufficient evidence that service under CPLR 308(1), (2), or (4) is impracticable.
3. Alternative service methods must be reasonably calculated to give the defendant notice of the proceeding, even if the defendant's exact whereabouts are unknown.

Conclusion: The main takeaway is that courts may authorize alternative service methods under CPLR 308(5) when traditional methods are impracticable, provided the chosen method is reasonably likely to inform the defendant of the action. This case demonstrates the court's flexibility in ensuring due process while balancing the plaintiff's right to pursue their claim against an elusive defendant.

Case Citation: Gibson v Salvatore, 102 AD2d 861, 476 NYS2d 930 (2d Dept 1984)

CASE 4: Insufficient Evidence for Expedient Service Under CPLR 308(5)

The Appellate Division addressed whether the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to warrant authorization for expedient service under CPLR 308(5) in an automobile accident case. The court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that service was impracticable under CPLR 308(1), (2), or (4).

Key Legal Principles:

1. A plaintiff must show that service is impracticable under CPLR 308(1), (2), or (4) before seeking authorization for expedient service under CPLR 308(5).
2. Conclusory statements about attempts to locate the defendant are insufficient to justify expedient service.
3. Detailed, substantiated factual allegations about steps taken to effect service under prescribed methods are required to establish impracticability.

Conclusion: The main takeaway is that courts require a thorough and well-documented showing of impracticability before authorizing expedient service under CPLR 308(5). Plaintiffs must provide concrete evidence of their efforts to serve defendants through traditional methods before resorting to alternative service.

Case Citation: Franchido v Onay, 150 AD2d 518, 541 NYS2d 113 (2d Dept 1989)

CASE 5: Standard for "Impracticable" Service Under CPLR 308(5)

The Appellate Division addressed the standard for determining when service is "impracticable" under CPLR 308(1), (2), and (4), thus warranting expedient service under CPLR 308(5). The majority affirmed the lower court's decision that service was impracticable, while the dissent argued for a higher standard of proof.

Key Legal Principles:

1. The "impracticable" standard for CPLR 308(5) does not require the same showing of "due diligence" as required under CPLR 308(4).
2. Courts have discretion in determining whether service is impracticable under CPLR 308(1), (2), and (4).
3. The dissent argued that a detailed factual foundation from those with first-hand knowledge is necessary to justify expedient service under CPLR 308(5).

The dissenting opinion provides more details about the attempts to serve Sandra Coyne, including:

• She had been traveling between Syracuse and New York City.
• She was known to stay at her mother's home or the Barbizon Plaza Hotel.
• The plaintiff's attorneys had communicated with her at her mother's home in November.
• In early December, she took an apartment in New York City.
• There was some confusion about her exact address (55th Street vs. 51st Street).
• No attempt was made to serve her at her mother's home.

The dissent argued that these facts did not sufficiently demonstrate that service was "impracticable" under the other methods, suggesting only that service was inconvenient.

The majority, however, found these facts sufficient to support the lower court's discretionary decision that service was impracticable under CPLR 308(1), (2), and (4).

Conclusion: The main takeaway is that courts have significant discretion in determining when service is "impracticable" under CPLR 308(5), potentially allowing for expedient service without the same level of proof required for "due diligence" under other subsections. However, the split decision suggests ongoing debate about the appropriate standard.

Case Citation: Coyne v Coyne, 83 AD2d 774, 443 NYS2d 472 (4th Dept 1981)

[SAMPLE] ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF [COUNTY]

--------------------------------------------------------------------X

[PLAINTIFF NAME], Plaintiff,

-against- Index No.: **[NUMBER]**

[DEFENDANT NAME], Defendant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------X

ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE SERVICE

[ATTORNEY NAME], an attorney duly admitted to practice law before the Courts of the State of New York, hereby affirms the following under penalty of perjury:

1. I am the attorney for the Plaintiff in this action and am fully familiar with the facts and circumstances herein.
2. I make this affirmation in support of Plaintiff's motion for an order pursuant to CPLR 308(5) authorizing alternative service upon Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME].
3. This action arises from [BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CASE, e.g., "a breach of contract"].
4. Defendant is a non-resident of New York, residing at [ADDRESS] in [STATE/COUNTRY].
5. The parties entered into a contract on [DATE], which contains a forum selection clause designating New York as the venue for any disputes arising from the agreement. Specifically, the clause states: [QUOTE FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE].
6. Despite this contractual agreement, service upon Defendant under CPLR 308(1), (2), and (4) is impracticable for the following reasons: a. [DETAIL ATTEMPTS AT SERVICE OR REASONS WHY TRADITIONAL SERVICE IS IMPRACTICABLE, e.g., "Three attempts at personal service were made at Defendant's last known address on [DATES] without success"] b. [CONTINUE LISTING REASONS, e.g., "Defendant's current whereabouts are unknown, and inquiries with known associates have yielded no information"]
7. In light of these circumstances, I respectfully submit that alternative service is warranted and propose the following method(s) of service: a. [PROPOSED METHOD OF SERVICE, e.g., "Email service to Defendant's last known email address: [EMAIL ADDRESS]"] b. [ADDITIONAL METHODS IF APPLICABLE, e.g., "Certified mail to Defendant's last known address"]
8. The proposed method(s) of service are reasonably calculated to apprise Defendant of the pendency of this action and afford an opportunity to be heard, as required by Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950).
9. Courts have authorized similar methods of alternative service in cases involving out-of-state defendants bound by forum selection clauses. See Alfred E. Mann Living Trust v. ETIRC Aviation S.A.R.L., 78 A.D.3d 137 (1st Dep't 2010).

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court grant Plaintiff's motion for alternative service and for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

Dated: [LOCATION], New York [DATE]

------

Case 6: Impracticability of Service and Need for Evidentiary Hearing in Mortgage Foreclosure Action

In this mortgage foreclosure case, the defendant appealed an order denying her motion to vacate an order of reference and dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The key issue was whether service of process on the defendant was impracticable, justifying alternative court-authorized service methods. The Appellate Division held that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to resolve factual disputes about the impracticability of service before ruling on Cave's motion.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Whether service is impracticable under CPLR 308(5) depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
2. To justify alternative service under CPLR 308(5), a plaintiff need not meet the more stringent "due diligence" standard required for nail and mail service under CPLR 308(4).
3. When there are factual disputes about the impracticability of service, a hearing is necessary before determining a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The main takeaway is that courts should conduct evidentiary hearings to resolve factual disputes about the impracticability of service before ruling on motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in mortgage foreclosure actions. This ensures proper consideration of all relevant circumstances surrounding service attempts.

Citation: Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v Cave, 172 AD3d 985 (2d Dept 2019)

Case 7: E-mail as Valid Alternate Service Method Under CPLR 308(5) and 311(b)

Plaintiffs in the energy business sought to serve process on defendants, an energy investment company and its president, who could not be located through conventional means. The court granted plaintiffs' motion under CPLR 308(5) and 311(b) to serve process via e-mail, finding that conventional service was impracticable and that e-mail service was reasonably calculated to provide notice to the defendants.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Under CPLR 308(5) and 311(b), courts have wide latitude to fashion alternate means of service when conventional methods are impracticable, as long as the chosen method is reasonably calculated to give notice to the defendant.
2. A plaintiff can demonstrate that service by conventional means is impracticable under CPLR 308(5) and 311(b) by showing diligent but unsuccessful efforts to obtain information regarding a defendant's current location.
3. E-mail service can be an appropriate form of alternate service under CPLR 308(5) and 311(b) when the plaintiff shows that the defendant regularly uses the e-mail address in question.

Conclusion: The court's decision interprets CPLR 308(5) and 311(b) to allow for e-mail service in the digital age, recognizing that e-mail can be an effective means of providing notice when traditional methods fail. This ruling opens the door for more widespread use of e-mail service in appropriate circumstances, potentially modernizing the process of initiating lawsuits under these statutes.

Citation: Snyder v Alternate Energy Inc., 19 Misc 3d 954, 857 NYS2d 442 (Civ Ct 2008)

Case 8: Personal Jurisdiction Over Non-Resident Based on Transacting Business in New York

A New York bank sued a Massachusetts business trust to recover on a promissory note. The defendant challenged personal jurisdiction, arguing it lacked sufficient contacts with New York. The court upheld jurisdiction based on the defendant's purposeful activities in New York related to the loan transaction, including making the note payable in New York, maintaining compensating balances in a New York account, and a representative's visit to the bank's New York office.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Under New York's long-arm statute (CPLR 302(a)(1)), courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary who transacts any business within the state.
2. In determining whether a defendant has transacted business in New York, courts look at the totality of the defendant's purposeful acts within the forum related to the contract.
3. Maintaining compensating balances in a New York bank account as an important part of a loan agreement can be a significant factor in establishing jurisdiction, even if the defendant has no physical presence in the state.

Conclusion: The court's decision emphasizes that personal jurisdiction can be established through a combination of purposeful activities related to a transaction, even if no single act alone would be sufficient. This ruling provides guidance on how courts may interpret "transacting business" under New York's long-arm statute in the context of financial transactions.

Citation: Sterling Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of N.Y. v Fidelity Mortgage Investors, 510 F2d 870 (2d Cir 1975)

Case 9: Denial of E-mail Service Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3)

A pharmaceutical company sought permission to serve foreign defendants by e-mail in a lawsuit involving internet domains. The court denied the motion without prejudice, finding insufficient evidence that e-mail service would effectively reach the defendants or that traditional service methods were impossible.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Under Rule 4(f)(3), alternative service methods must comport with due process by being reasonably calculated to provide notice to defendants.
2. Courts must balance the limitations of e-mail service against its benefits in each particular case.
3. Plaintiffs must demonstrate diligent efforts to locate and serve defendants through traditional means before resorting to alternative service methods.

Conclusion: The court's decision emphasizes the need for plaintiffs to thoroughly investigate and exhaust traditional service methods before seeking alternative service, particularly when dealing with internet-based defendants. It also highlights the court's cautious approach to e-mail service, requiring strong evidence that such service would effectively reach defendants.

Citation: Pfizer Inc. v Domains By Proxy, 2004 WL 1576703, at *1-2 (D Conn July 13, 2004)

Case 10: Federal Court Upholds Email Service on Foreign Internet Business in Trademark Case, Affirming Validity of Court-Ordered Alternative Service Methods

The case involves a trademark infringement suit against a foreign internet business. The plaintiff sought and received court approval for alternative service methods, including email. The defendant challenged the service, personal jurisdiction, and subsequent default judgment.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Court-ordered alternative service under Rule 4(f)(3) is equally valid as other methods and does not require exhausting other options first.
2. Alternative service methods must comport with constitutional due process, being reasonably calculated to provide notice and opportunity to respond.
3. Email service can be a valid method when authorized by the court and appropriate to the circumstances.

Conclusion: The court upheld the alternative service methods, finding them constitutionally adequate and emphasizing the court's discretion in authorizing such methods for international defendants. This case established email as a potentially valid service method when court-approved and appropriate to the specific circumstances.

Case Citation: Rio Props. v Rio Intl. Interlink, 284 F3d 1007 (9th Cir 2002)

Case 11: Supreme Court Holds Personal Jurisdiction in Interstate Franchise Agreements

A Florida-based franchisor sued a Michigan-based franchisee in Florida for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state franchisee in Florida did not violate due process, given the franchisee's substantial and continuing relationship with the franchisor's Florida headquarters.

Key Legal Principles:

1. The Due Process Clause requires that a defendant have "minimum contacts" with the forum state such that maintaining the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
2. A defendant's contract with an out-of-state party alone does not automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts; courts must evaluate prior negotiations, contemplated future consequences, terms of the contract, and the parties' actual course of dealing.
3. When a defendant has purposefully established minimum contacts with a forum state, the burden shifts to the defendant to present a compelling case that other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.

Conclusion: The case establishes that personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state franchisee can be constitutional when the franchisee has deliberately reached out to create a substantial and continuing relationship with the franchisor's home state. The Court also noted that forum selection clauses in contracts are valid and enforceable as long as they are not unreasonable or unjust.

Citation: Burger King Corp. v Rudzewicz, 471 US 462 (1985)

Case 12: Personal Jurisdiction as a Waivable Right and Rule 37 Sanctions

The Supreme Court addressed whether a federal district court could use sanctions under Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to establish personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants who failed to comply with discovery orders. The Court held that such sanctions do not violate due process and can be used to establish personal jurisdiction.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Personal jurisdiction is an individual right that can be waived, unlike subject matter jurisdiction which is a limitation on federal power.
2. Rule 37(b) sanctions establishing jurisdictional facts as true do not violate due process if properly applied.
3. A court's exercise of personal jurisdiction through Rule 37 sanctions is subject to the same due process analysis as other assertions of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The main takeaway is that personal jurisdiction is a waivable right, and courts can use properly applied discovery sanctions to establish jurisdiction over non-compliant defendants. This ruling affirms the broad discretion of trial courts in managing discovery and enforcing their orders.

Citation: Insurance Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694, 102 S. Ct. 2099, 72 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1982)

Case 13: Electronic Signature Dispute in Commercial Receivables Agreement Leads to Partial Summary Judgment and Raises Questions of Signature Authenticity

This case involves a dispute over a receivables agreement between a financial company and several corporate and individual defendants. One defendant claimed she did not sign the agreement, which contained an electronic signature. The court granted summary judgment against non-answering defendants but denied it for the defendant who disputed her signature, finding an issue of fact regarding the validity of the electronic signature.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Electronic signatures can be valid and enforceable under New York law, but their validity depends on compliance with the Electronic Signatures and Records Act (ESRA) and evidence of the signer's intent to be bound.
2. Parties can contractually waive statutory rules regarding service of process and agree to choice-of-law provisions in contracts.
3. On a motion to dismiss, courts must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and determine if they fit within any cognizable legal theory.

Conclusion: The main takeaway is that while electronic signatures are generally valid in New York, courts require sufficient evidence to establish their authenticity and the signer's intent when challenged. This case highlights the importance of properly documenting and explaining electronic signature processes in commercial agreements.

Citation: AJ Equity Group LLC v Office Connection, Inc., 80 Misc 3d 1233(A) (Sup Ct, Monroe County 2023)

Conclusion

Whether you're a plaintiff seeking to serve an elusive out-of-state defendant or a defendant wondering about the validity of service received, understanding CPLR § 313 is crucial in navigating the complexities of New York's long-arm jurisdiction. This statute, when wielded properly, ensures that justice knows no borders in the Empire State.