Also known as: CPLR § 308 · NY CPLR 308 · CPLR 308 · service of process
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statutory rule prescribing the methods for effecting service of process in civil actions commenced in New York courts. The rule lists personal delivery as the primary method and authorizes delivery to a person of suitable age at the defendant's dwelling or usual place of abode, delivery to an agent, and court-ordered alternative service when standard methods prove impracticable.
Nancy Nelson filed a divorce action and obtained a court order under the statute authorizing service by posting on the defendant's Facebook account after other methods failed. The defendant moved to dismiss under the federal rule for insufficient service of process, claiming the order did not satisfy due process. The court denied the motion because the chosen method was reasonably calculated to reach the defendant.
Norman Nash registered timely as a putative father under the uniform act. When Nina Nielsen later sought to terminate his parental rights, she served process on him by personal delivery at his residence pursuant to the New York statute. The court held that service satisfied the notice requirement because it followed the civil-procedure methods prescribed by state law.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Noah Nakamura never registered but was identified as an alleged genetic father of a child now over one year old. Nathan Nguyen, seeking adoption, served process on Nakamura by leaving papers with a person of suitable age at his usual place of abode under the New York statute. The court found service valid because the method was one authorized by the statute for civil actions as required by the uniform act.
Nigel Nelson could not be located despite reasonable efforts to find his current address. The plaintiff obtained an order permitting service by publication under the New York statute. The court upheld the order because the chosen method was reasonably calculated to provide notice consistent with constitutional requirements.
New Horizon Media commenced suit in federal court and served the defendant by delivering papers to an authorized agent under the New York statute. The defendant argued the action was time-barred because filing alone did not commence the suit. The court held that service under the statute triggered the limitations period under the applicable state rule.
Navarro Industries was served under the New York statute in a state court action that was later removed and transferred. The defendant claimed the original service became ineffective after transfer. The court ruled that proper service under the statute remained valid in the transferee court.
The statute lists personal delivery as the preferred method. It also permits delivery to a person of suitable age at the defendant's dwelling or usual place of abode, delivery to an agent, and court-ordered alternative service when standard methods are impracticable.
Supporting sources
A court may order alternative service when the plaintiff shows that standard methods are impracticable. The chosen method must still be reasonably calculated to provide actual notice to the defendant.
Supporting sources
Actual notice does not excuse noncompliance with the statute's prescribed methods. The plaintiff must still follow one of the authorized methods or obtain a court order for an alternative.
Supporting sources
A defendant may move to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) when service under the statute is claimed to be insufficient. The court evaluates whether the method used complied with the statute and satisfied due process.
Yes. When a state adopts the uniform act, notice in adoption or termination proceedings must be given by a method prescribed for service of process in civil actions, which includes the methods authorized by the New York statute.
…but also give rise to the liabilities sued on, even though no consent to be sued or authorization to an agent to accept service of process has been given. St. Clair v. Cox , 106 U. S. 350, 355; Connecticut Mutual Co. v. Spratley , 172 U. S. 602, 610-611; Pennsylvania Lumbermen’s Ins. Co. v. Meyer , 197 U. S. 407, 414-415;…