Narrative Opinion Summary
In the case at hand, defendants appealed a Supreme Court order that allowed alternative service of process on one of the defendants, Earl Lewis, under CPLR 308(5). The decision, affirmed on June 1, 1994, supported a prior order from September 17, 1993, permitting this alternative due to the impracticability of conventional methods described in CPLR 308(1), (2), and (4). The court identified that the plaintiffs’ three failed attempts to serve Lewis at his last known address on separate weekdays warranted the impracticability finding, thus justifying service through Lewis's attorneys. Notably, the court clarified that the impracticability standard under CPLR 308(5) diverges from the due diligence requirement of CPLR 308(4), as the former does not necessitate exhaustive attempts using all statutory service methods. The court affirmed the order with costs, with the concurrence of Justices Bracken, O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann, and Goldstein, thereby upholding the plaintiffs' actions as meeting the necessary legal standards for alternative service of process.
Legal Issues Addressed
Alternative Service of Process under CPLR 308(5)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court permitted alternative service of process due to impracticability of statutory methods, allowing service on the defendant's attorneys.
Reasoning: The court exercised its discretion under CPLR 308(5) to allow alternative service when methods outlined in CPLR 308(1), (2), and (4) were deemed impracticable.
Distinction between Impracticability and Due Diligencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court clarified that impracticability under CPLR 308(5) does not require prior attempts at service through all statutory methods, distinguishing it from the 'due diligence' requirement.
Reasoning: The standard for 'impracticability' under CPLR 308(5) differs from the 'due diligence' requirement of CPLR 308(4), as impracticability does not necessitate prior attempts at service through all statutory methods.
Impracticability Standard under CPLR 308(5)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that three unsuccessful attempts to serve the defendant justified a finding of impracticability, allowing for alternative service.
Reasoning: The court determined that the plaintiffs’ three unsuccessful attempts to serve Lewis at his last known address on different weekdays justified the conclusion of impracticability.