How to Challenge Process Servers at NYC Traverse Hearings: A Guide in 2025

When challenging "service" (delivery) of the summons and complaint, arm yourself with the knowledge you need to attack the case confidently.

This comprehensive review examines recent court decisions and statutory requirements governing process servers, revealing how proper record-keeping can make or break a case. From the transition to electronic records to the strict requirements for traverse hearings, I explore how courts evaluate service validity and what documentation process servers must maintain to ensure their service withstands legal scrutiny.

Process Server's Lack of Records and Biased Testimony Leads to Dismissal in Traverse Hearing (Our Case)

At a traverse hearing challenging service in Kentucky, the court found a process server's testimony not credible when he failed to produce contemporaneous service records and showed bias by making assumptions about the defendant based on a purported accent that did not exist. The process server's only evidence was a photograph of the service location taken in preparation for the hearing, while the defendant provided evidence contradicting the server's description of his appearance and marital status.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Process server's lack of contemporaneous records can undermine credibility at traverse hearings
2. Evidence of bias or stereotyping by a process server can damage their credibility
3. A defendant's status as an interested witness does not automatically overcome other evidence undermining the process server's credibility

Conclusion: Process servers must maintain contemporaneous records and avoid making assumptions about defendants, as courts will scrutinize both the documentary evidence and potential bias in determining credibility at traverse hearings.

Citation: Kapitus Servicing, Inc. v Tayo, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 30454(U) (Sup Ct, NY County 2025).

Computer-Generated Process Server Records Do Not Satisfy Statutory Record-Keeping Requirements

In a mortgage foreclosure action, the court held that computer-generated records failed to comply with the strict record-keeping requirements for process servers under General Business Law § 89-cc and related regulations. The process server produced a computer-generated "log book" where entries were made by office staff rather than the server herself, and there was no system to verify data accuracy. The court found these records unreliable since they could be altered without detection, unlike the required bound, paginated volumes with manual corrections.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Process server records must be maintained in bound, paginated volumes with corrections made only by drawing straight lines through inaccurate entries.
2. Computer records that can be altered without evidence of changes do not satisfy statutory requirements for process server record-keeping.
3. A process server's testimony cannot be credited when their records fail to comply with statutory requirements.

Conclusion: Any deviation from the strict statutory requirements for process server record-keeping invalidates service, and only legislative action can authorize computer records as an acceptable alternative to bound volumes.

Citation: First Commercial Bank of Memphis, N.A. v Ndiaye, 189 Misc 2d 523 (Sup Ct, Queens County 2001).

Process Server's Failure to Bring All Service Records to Traverse Hearing Requires Dismissal

In a landlord-tenant dispute, the court dismissed the proceeding when a process server brought only his log book but failed to bring the original note sheets from which he had transcribed his service entries. The process server testified that he made log book entries after service from note sheets created at the time of service, making those original notes crucial evidence under court rules requiring production of all service-related records at traverse hearings.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Process servers must bring all records in their possession relating to service when testifying at traverse hearings under 22 NYCRR § 208.29.
2. The requirement to produce all records ensures courts have the "best evidence" when examining service validity.
3. Failure to produce all service-related records impairs effective examination of primary records and defeats due process requirements.

Conclusion: The court's strict enforcement of record production requirements reflects the critical importance of having complete documentation to verify proper service, particularly when log entries are made after the fact from original notes.

Citation: Rose Associates v Becker, 153 Misc 2d 900 (Civ Ct, NY County 1992).

Process Server's Non-Compliant Records Lead to Finding of Defective Service in Medical Malpractice Case

In a medical malpractice action, the appellate court upheld a referee's finding that service was defective, primarily because the process server's records failed to comply with General Business Law § 89-cc and NYC Department of Consumer Affairs rules. The court found the process server lacked credibility due to non-compliant record-keeping and gave greater weight to the defendant's testimony denying proper service.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving jurisdiction through proper service by a preponderance of evidence.
2. A process server's lack of compliance with required record-keeping regulations can undermine their credibility in traverse hearings.
3. Courts may properly give more weight to defendant's testimony over a process server's when the server's records violate statutory requirements.

Conclusion: Non-compliance with process server record-keeping requirements can be fatal to establishing valid service, as such violations diminish the server's credibility and the reliability of their testimony about service attempts.

Citation: Hobbins v North Star Orthopedics, PLLC, 148 AD3d 784 (2d Dept 2017).

Service on Building Concierge Proper When Process Server Denied Access to Apartment

A bank sought to recover on a defaulted business credit agreement. The court upheld service of process where the process server delivered papers to a building concierge after being denied access to the defendant's apartment. The process server's testimony about general practices of first seeking permission to access apartments, corroborated by the building manager's testimony about building security policies, was sufficient to establish proper service under CPLR 308(2), even though the process server's contemporaneous logbook was not preserved.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Testimony about general practices can raise a presumption of proper service
2. Building manager testimony can corroborate process server's account of service attempts
3. Loss of a process server's logbook is not fatal to proving service when building management testimony corroborates the process server's account of standard building access policies

Conclusion: Process servers can rely on testimony about standard practices to help prove proper service, particularly when supported by building personnel, even without contemporaneous written records.

Citation: Citibank, N.A. v K.L.P. Sportswear, Inc., 144 A.D.3d 608 (1st Dept. 2016)

Process Server's Log Book Need Not Be Admitted Into Evidence to Establish Credibility at Traverse Hearing

In a landlord-tenant dispute, the appellate court reversed the lower court's dismissal which was based solely on the landlord's failure to offer the process server's log book into evidence at a traverse hearing. Although the process server had brought the log book to the hearing, the lower court erroneously concluded it could not credit the server's testimony without the log book being admitted into evidence.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Process server's records need not be admitted into evidence to establish the server's credibility, though they are vital for proper cross-examination.
2. Production of records serves due process requirements, but failure to admit them into evidence does not automatically undermine server credibility.
3. Absent justifiable excuse for nonappearance, failure to prove service of rent demand may establish defense but doesn't excuse failure to appear if petition was properly served.

Conclusion: While process server records must be produced at traverse hearings to enable proper cross-examination, their formal admission into evidence is not required to establish the server's credibility.

Citation: Hudson House, LLC v Gabriel, 195 Misc 2d 453, 759 NYS2d 287 (App Term, 2d Dept 2002).

Electronic Process Server Records Permitted Under New Law But Full Daily Logs Still Required at Traverse Hearing

In a holdover proceeding, the court addressed the implications of a recent amendment to GBL § 89-cc allowing electronic logbooks instead of bound volumes. While the process server initially provided only two electronic entries for the specific service attempts, the court required production of complete daily logs to enable proper cross-examination. The process server's testimony was ultimately credited over the tenant's due to photographic evidence of his presence at the building and corroborating testimony about the premises' description.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Recent amendment to GBL § 89-cc permits electronic logbooks but still requires availability of "all data" for review by interested parties.
2. Complete daily logs must be produced at traverse hearings even with electronic records to enable proper cross-examination.
3. Courts may credit a disinterested process server's testimony over an interested party's when supported by corroborating evidence.

Conclusion: While electronic process server records are now permitted by statute, the requirement to produce complete daily logs at traverse hearings remains unchanged to ensure proper scrutiny of service attempts.

Citation: Leifer v Moskowitz, 77 Misc 3d 720, 181 NYS3d 427 (Civ Ct, NY County 2022).

Missing Process Server Log Book Not Fatal Where Only Service Authority at Issue

In a commercial nonpayment proceeding, the appellate court held that a process server's failure to bring his log book to a traverse hearing did not require dismissal where the only disputed issue was whether the general manager had authority to accept service. The process server had delivered papers to the general manager who had accepted service in the past, and the manager admitted receiving the papers, making log book details about time and date of service irrelevant to resolving the authority question.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Process server's log book requirement may be excused when log details would not aid in resolving the specific service dispute at issue.
2. Service on a corporation is valid when made on someone the process server reasonably believed had authority to accept service.
3. An employee with supervisory duties who previously accepted service can have apparent authority to accept service on behalf of a corporation.

Conclusion: While process server records are generally required at traverse hearings, their absence is not automatically fatal when the disputed service issue does not depend on the information those records would contain.

Citation: AMB Fund III New York III & IV, LLC v WWTL Logistics, Inc., 35 Misc 3d 8, 942 NYS2d 307 (App Term, 2d Dept 2012).

Process Servers Outside NYC Not Required to Maintain Bound Log Books Under General Business Law

In a tax lien foreclosure case, the appellate court reversed a lower court's ruling that had vacated a judgment based on a Nassau County process server's failure to maintain a bound log book. The court held that while General Business Law § 89-u requires process servers outside NYC to maintain "legible records," it does not expressly require a bound, paginated volume like § 89-cc(1) does for NYC process servers.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Process servers outside NYC must maintain "legible records" under GBL § 89-u but are not required to keep bound log books like NYC servers under § 89-cc(1).
2. Where a law expressly describes requirements for one jurisdiction (NYC), courts cannot impose those requirements on other jurisdictions where the law omits them.
3. A process server's use of work tickets rather than a bound log book is permissible for service outside NYC.

Conclusion: Different record-keeping requirements apply to process servers in NYC versus those operating elsewhere in New York State, and courts cannot impose NYC's stricter bound log book requirement outside the city.

Citation: Moret Partnership v Spickerman, 125 AD3d 729, 5 NYS3d 109 (2d Dept 2015).

Real Estate Transaction Within City Limits Satisfies "Long-Arm" Jurisdiction Under Uniform City Court Act

A real estate broker showed property located within the city to potential clients, which constituted "transacting business" within the meaning of the city court's long-arm jurisdiction statute. The court determined it had personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants under the Uniform City Court Act, even though they were served outside the county, because the single business transaction occurred within city limits.

Key Legal Principles:

1. A single business transaction within city limits can establish personal jurisdiction over non-residents if the cause of action arises from that transaction
2. The legislative intent behind "long-arm statutes" was to confer jurisdiction over non-resident defendants whenever statutory requirements are met
3. Under UCCA § 404(a)(1), showing property to potential buyers within city limits constitutes "transacting business" for jurisdictional purposes

Conclusion: A city court can exercise personal jurisdiction over non-resident defendants based on a single business transaction within city limits, provided the cause of action arises from that transaction. This interpretation aligns with the broader legislative intent to extend jurisdictional reach through long-arm statutes.

Citation: Downes v Cirelli, 52 Misc 2d 637 (City Ct, Yonkers 1967).

Traverse Hearing Required for Conflicting Service Affidavits in Shared Office Space

In a complex business dispute, the court addressed jurisdictional challenges based on alleged improper service. One defendant personally denied being served, claiming an unauthorized person in his shared office space received the documents. The court held that these conflicting averments necessitated a traverse hearing to determine the validity of service.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Personal denial of service by a defendant requires a traverse hearing when it conflicts with the process server's affidavit.
2. Service under CPLR 308(2) must be made at the defendant's actual dwelling place or usual place of abode.
3. Shared office spaces can complicate service, requiring careful examination of the recipient's authority to accept service.

Conclusion: The case underscores the importance of proper service in establishing jurisdiction, particularly in shared business environments. When faced with conflicting accounts of service, courts should conduct traverse hearings to resolve factual disputes and ensure due process.

Citation: Slutzky v Aron Estates Corp., 157 Misc 2d 749, 753 (Sup Ct 1993).

Process Server's Death Does Not Preclude Traverse Hearing and Burden Shifts to Defendant to Challenge Service

In a consumer debt collection case, the court held that while a deceased process server's affidavit constitutes prima facie evidence of service under CPLR 4537, the process server's death does not automatically preclude a traverse hearing. Instead, the burden shifts to the defendant to challenge service. At the hearing, defendant and his mother testified that no one matching the process server's description resided at their address and they never received the summons and complaint by mail.

Key Legal Principles:

1. A process server's death makes their affidavit prima facie evidence of service but does not prevent defendants from challenging service through a traverse hearing.
2. When a process server dies before a traverse hearing, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove improper service.
3. Prima facie evidence of service through a deceased process server's affidavit can be rebutted with credible testimony.

Conclusion: When a process server dies, defendants retain their right to challenge service while plaintiffs are protected from automatic dismissals, creating a balanced approach through burden-shifting at traverse hearings.

Citation: First American Investment Company, LLC v. Fabian, 75 Misc 3d 1205(A) (Civ Ct, Bronx County 2022).

GPS Records and Process Server Logbook Inconsistencies Don't Invalidate Service When Core Service Details Are Consistent

In a holdover proceeding, the court upheld service of a termination notice despite some inconsistencies between GPS records and process server logbook entries. The process server's credible testimony, supported by consistent GPS and logbook records showing attempted service at the subject premises at 8:39 PM, along with evidence of service on another tenant in the same building minutes earlier, outweighed the tenant's general testimony about usual daily routines.

Key Legal Principles:

1. Before using conspicuous place service under RPAPL § 735, process servers must attempt personal service twice - once during business hours and once during non-business hours
2. Inconsistencies in GPS records and logbook entries don't invalidate service when the core service attempt details are consistent
3. GPS tracking requirements exist to detect false claims in affidavits of service, but inconsistencies unrelated to the subject service don't defeat proof of proper service

Conclusion: Minor discrepancies in process server records don't invalidate service when the records are consistent regarding the actual service attempt in question and are supported by credible testimony.

Citation: Kenmore Assocs., L.P. v Burke, 66 Misc 3d 1225(A) (Civ Ct, NY County 2020).

Process Server's Lost Logbook and Minor Discrepancies Don't Defeat Credible Service Testimony

In a medical malpractice case, the court reversed a referee's finding of invalid service, holding that a process server's testimony was more credible than the defendant doctor's denial of service. The process server provided a precise description of the office layout and made multiple service attempts, while the doctor's claims about restricted office access were undermined by regular patient traffic. The court found that the loss of the process server's logbook and minor discrepancies in describing the defendant's appearance (explained by a 20-pound weight loss) did not invalidate otherwise credible service testimony.

Key Legal Principles:

1. A disinterested process server's testimony can outweigh a party's denial of service, particularly when supported by specific location details
2. Loss of a process server's logbook alone cannot discredit service testimony, especially when other evidence supports proper service
3. Minor discrepancies in physical descriptions of defendants don't invalidate service when reasonably explained by circumstances

Conclusion: When evaluating contested service, courts should focus on the overall credibility of testimony and circumstances rather than isolated documentation issues or minor discrepancies.

Citation: Kardanis v Velis, 90 AD2d 727 (1st Dept 1982).

While these cases demonstrate how courts analyze process server records in practice, the underlying statutory framework provides the foundation for these requirements. New York's detailed regulations governing process servers establish specific obligations for record-keeping, licensing, and documentation. Understanding these statutory requirements is essential for ensuring valid service and maintaining proper jurisdiction in collections cases.

Statutes & Regulations

§ 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 this means:

This law explains how you can legally serve court papers to someone who lives in New York or is under New York courts' authority, even when that person is physically located outside of New York state. Here are the key points:

1. The law applies to:

• People who live in New York
• People who are subject to New York courts' jurisdiction
• Their executors or administrators (people who handle their estate)

2. You can serve them court papers outside New York state using:

• Any New York resident who is authorized to serve papers in New York
• Anyone authorized to serve papers in the location where service is being made
• Any qualified lawyer in that location

3. The service method must follow the same rules as if you were serving someone within New York state.

For example, if someone lives in New York but is temporarily in Florida, you could have either a New York process server or a Florida process server deliver the court papers to them in Florida, following New York's rules for service.

What if service relates to a domiciliary of another state who is allegedly subject to the jurisdiction of New York?

For someone who lives in another state but has connections to New York, the key is whether they fall under sections 301 or 302 of New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules (which this statute specifically references). These sections establish when New York has jurisdiction over out-of-state residents.

Some common situations where New York might have jurisdiction over an out-of-state resident include:

• They conduct regular business in New York
• They committed a tortious act in New York
• They own, use, or possess property in New York
• They contracted to supply goods or services in New York
• They have other substantial connections to New York

If any of these apply (making them "subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the state under section 301 or 302" as the statute says), then yes - they can be served outside New York using the same methods described in §313.

However, it's important to note that just alleging a connection isn't enough - there needs to be sufficient legal basis for New York's jurisdiction over them under sections 301 or 302. If the connection is too tenuous, the service might not be valid even if technically performed correctly.

Section 208.29. Traverse hearings

Whenever the court has scheduled a hearing to determine whether process was served validly and timely upon a party, and where a process server will testify as to the service, the process server shall be required to bring to the hearing all records in the possession of the process server relating to the matter at issue. Where the process server is licensed, he or she also shall bring the license to the court. 22 NYCRR 208.29

What this means:

When there's a court hearing to challenge whether court papers were properly served (called a "traverse hearing"), this rule requires that:

1. The process server must bring ALL their records about that specific service to the hearing. This would likely include things like:

• GPS records
• Service logs
• Photos
• Notes
• Any other documentation related to that service

2. If the process server has a license, they must also physically bring their license to court.

This rule exists to help the court determine if service was actually done properly and legally. It's basically saying "bring everything you have that proves you served these papers correctly" so the judge can examine the evidence directly.

For example, if someone claims they were never served and requests a traverse hearing, the process server can't just show up and testify - they need to bring all their supporting documentation to back up their testimony.

NEW YORK CITY CHARTER, CODE, AMENDMENTS & RULES

NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

TITLE 20. CONSUMER AFFAIRS

CHAPTER 2. LICENSES.

SUBCHAPTER 23. PROCESS SERVERS.

The New York City Code is current with files received through September 30, 2024.

§ 20-403. License required.

a. Process server license. It shall be unlawful for any person to do business as, be employed as or perform the services of a process server without a license therefor.

b. Process serving agency license. It shall be unlawful for any process serving agency to assign or distribute process to individual process servers for actual service in the city of New York without a license therefore.

What this means:

This New York City law creates two mandatory licensing requirements for process serving in NYC:

1. Individual Process Servers:

• Anyone who serves legal papers in NYC must have a license
• You can't work as a process server without one
• You can't even be employed as one without a license
• This applies whether you're independent or work for an agency

2. Process Serving Agencies:

• Any company that assigns court papers to process servers must have a separate agency license
• They can't distribute papers to servers for service in NYC without this license
• This applies even if their individual servers are licensed

In simple terms, both the individual servers AND the companies they work for need their own licenses to operate legally in New York City. Neither can operate without proper licensing, and doing so would be illegal.

For example, if ABC Process Serving Company wants to operate in NYC, they need:

• Their own agency license
• All their process servers must have individual licenses

It's a two-tier licensing system designed to regulate both the companies and the individuals doing the actual service.

NEW YORK CITY CHARTER, CODE, AMENDMENTS & RULES

NEW YORK CITY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE

TITLE 20. CONSUMER AFFAIRS

CHAPTER 2. LICENSES.

SUBCHAPTER 23. PROCESS SERVERS.

The New York City Code is current with files received through September 30, 2024.

§ 20-406.3. Records, Audits.

a. Every process server and process serving agency licensed under this subchapter shall retain records in compliance with section 89-cc of the New York state general business law for no less than seven (7) years of each process served. Such records shall be retained in electronic form. Tampering with any such electronic records shall be prohibited.

b. A process server licensed under this subchapter who engages in the business of serving process exclusively as an employee of a process serving agency licensed under this subchapter shall not be subject to the provisions of subdivision (a) of this section, but shall be required to comply with all other applicable laws.

c. The commissioner shall conduct audits of the information required to be kept pursuant to subdivision (a) of this section in order to monitor compliance with this subchapter. The commissioner shall conduct annual audits, of the information required to be kept pursuant to subdivision a, for at least 20 percent of the licensed process servers who have certified, pursuant to subdivision d, having served at least one summons, subpoena, notice, citation or other process, directing an appearance or response to a legal action, legal proceeding or administrative proceeding that is subject to the provisions of section 110 of the civil court act.

d. By February 1, 2020 and every six months thereafter, each licensed process server shall submit electronically to the commissioner a certification, in a form to be determined by the commissioner, stating whether the licensed process server has served at least one summons, subpoena, notice, citation or other process, directing an appearance or response to a legal action, legal proceeding or administrative proceeding that is subject to the provisions of section 110 of the civil court act within the immediately prior semi-annual calendar year period.

What this means:

This law sets out record-keeping requirements and audit procedures for NYC process servers. Here are the key points:

1. Record Keeping Requirements:

• Process servers and agencies must keep records for 7 years
• Records must be in electronic form
• It's illegal to tamper with these records
• They must follow New York State law (section 89-cc) about what information to keep

2. Exception for Agency Employees:

• Process servers who work exclusively for a licensed agency don't have to keep their own records
• The agency is responsible for maintaining the records instead
• These servers still must follow all other laws

3. Audit Requirements:

• The commissioner must conduct regular audits
• They must audit at least 20% of licensed servers each year
• But only servers who have reported serving at least one civil court document

4. Reporting Requirements:

• Starting February 1, 2020, all licensed servers must report every 6 months
• They must tell the commissioner whether they've served any civil court papers
• This report must be submitted electronically
• The commissioner decides the format of this report

This law creates a system of accountability through mandatory record-keeping, regular audits, and periodic reporting to ensure process servers are following the rules.

General Business Law § 89-cc. Process server records

1. Each process server shall maintain a legible record of all service made by him or her as prescribed in this section. Such records shall be kept, either:

(a) in chronological order in a bound, paginated volume. Corrections in records shall be made only by drawing a straight line through the inaccurate entry and clearly printing the accurate information directly above the inaccurate entry. All other methods of correction, including but not limited to erasing, opaquing, obliterating or redacting, are prohibited; or

(b) by submitting recorded entries to a third party contractor within three days of service or attempted service, provided, however that permissions pertaining to such data will be secured so that the data cannot be deleted upon submission. Records shall be reported in chronological order. It shall be unlawful for any process server to tamper with data or properties of any electronic record kept pursuant to this section after an image file is made by modifying, amending, deleting, rearranging or in any other way altering any such data or properties including, but not limited to, using a meta data scrubber or similar device or program. If a typographical error has occurred or if data contained in the process server's record was accidentally omitted from the electronic data entry, the third party contractor may make an amendment in which the original record shall be identified by entering it in italics. All third party contractors must maintain a daily backup of all submitted data, and all data must be available for review upon request of any and all interested parties.

2. The record to be maintained shall include the following information, where applicable:

(a) the title of the action or a reasonable abbreviation thereof;

(b) the name of the person served, if known;

(c) the date and approximate time service was effected;

(d) the address where service was effected;

(e) the nature of the papers served;

(f) the court in which the action has been commenced;

(g) the index number of the action, if known;

(h) if service is effectuated pursuant to subdivision four of section three hundred eight of the civil practice law and rules or subdivision one of section seven hundred thirty-five of the real property actions and proceedings law, a description of the color of the door to which the summons is affixed;

(i) the process serving agency from whom the process served was received, if any;

(j) type of service effected whether personal, substituted or conspicuous;

(k) if service is effected pursuant to subdivision one, two or three of section three hundred eight of the civil practice law and rules, the record shall also include the description of the person served, including, but not limited to sex, color of skin, hair color, approximate age, height and weight and other identifying features;

(l) if service is effected pursuant to subdivision four of section three hundred eight of the civil practice law and rules, the record shall also include the dates, addresses and time of attempted service pursuant to subdivision one, two or three of such section;

(m) if the process server files an affidavit of service with the court, his record shall include the date of such filing.

What this means:

This law sets out exactly how process servers must keep their records in New York State. Here are the key requirements:

1. Record Format Options:

• Option A: A physical bound book with numbered pages
  • Changes must be made by crossing out errors with a straight line
  • Correct information goes directly above the error
  • No erasing, white-out, or other forms of correction allowed
• Option B: Electronic records through a third-party contractor
  • Must submit within 3 days of service
  • Can't delete data once submitted
  • Can only fix errors by adding italicized corrections
  • Contractor must back up data daily

2. Required Information for Each Service:

• Case basics:
  • Case title
  • Court information
  • Index number (if known)
  • Type of papers served
• Service details:
  • Who was served
  • Date and time
  • Address
  • How it was served (personal, substitute, or conspicuous)
• Specific details for different types of service:
  • For personal/substitute service: Description of the person (height, weight, age, etc.)
  • For door service: Color of the door
  • For substitute service: Details of previous attempts
  • Date when affidavit was filed with court

3. Special Rules:

• Must keep records in chronological order
• Can't tamper with electronic records
• Records must be legible
• Must note which agency provided the papers (if applicable)

This law ensures detailed documentation of every service attempt, making it possible to verify proper service later if questioned.

Conclusion

Process server documentation requirements in New York City create a robust framework designed to ensure proper service and protect due process rights. Whether maintaining traditional bound volumes or transitioning to electronic records, process servers must meticulously document their service attempts and maintain comprehensive records for seven years. The courts' strict enforcement of these requirements, combined with mandatory licensing and regular audits, creates a system of accountability that helps ensure the integrity of service of process in collections cases. Understanding these requirements is essential for collections attorneys, creditors, and debtors alike to navigate the complex landscape of civil procedure in New York City.