| Farias v Simon |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04246 [73 AD3d 569] |
| May 18, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Jesus Farias, Respondent, v John Douglas Simon, Jr., etal., Appellants, et al., Defendant. |
—[*1] Shapiro Law Offices, PLLC, Bronx (Ernest S. Buonocore of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paul G. Feinman, J.), entered April 22, 2009,which denied defendants-appellants' motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction,unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, enteredSeptember 18, 2009, which, insofar as appealable, denied defendants' motion to renew,unanimously dismissed, without costs, as abandoned.
Plaintiff's process server's successive attempts to serve defendants personally at varioustimes of the day when it could be reasonably expected that they would be at home satisfied thedue diligence requirement of CPLR 308 (4) so as to permit nail-and-mail service (seeHochhauser v Bungeroth, 179 AD2d 431 [1992]). As defendants do not dispute that the frontdoor of their apartment is accessible from the street, we reject their argument that the processserver, before resorting to nail-and-mail, should have first attempted service pursuant to CPLR308 (2) by delivering the process to the doorman of their building (cf. McCormack vGoldstein, 204 AD2d 121 [1994], lv denied 85 NY2d 801 [1995]). Nor was itnecessary that the process server, before [*2]resorting tonail-and-mail, attempt to serve defendants at their place of business (see Brunson v Hill,191 AD2d 334 [1993]). Concur—Tom, J.P., McGuire, Moskowitz, Acosta and Freedman,JJ.