[*1]
ABM Wireless Inc. v Wireless Gift Shop Inc.
2006 NY Slip Op 50305(U) [11 Misc 3d 130(A)]
Decided on February 27, 2006
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on February 27, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

APPELLATE TERM: 2nd and 11th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS

PRESENT: : WESTON PATTERSON, J.P., GOLIA and BELEN, JJ
2005-46 Q C.

ABM Wireless Inc. d/b/a MOBILEISTIC, Respondent,

against

Wireless Gift Shop Inc., Defendant, -and- FAROOQ A. SULTAN, Appellant.


Appeal from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Howard G. Lane, J.), entered June 30, 2004. The order denied defendant Sultan's motion to vacate the default judgment insofar as entered against him.


Order affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover $15,022.29, plus interest, for the balance due on goods it sold to defendant Wireless Gift Shop Inc., the payment of which defendant Sultan personally guaranteed. A default judgment was subsequently entered against defendants in January 2004. Thereafter, defendant Sultan moved to vacate the judgment insofar as entered against him and solely asserted that he had not been served with the summons and complaint.

Service of a summons and complaint pursuant to the "nail and mail" provision of
CPLR 308 (4) may be used only where personal service under CPLR 308 (1) and (2) could not be made with due diligence. Given the reduced likelihood that papers served pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) will be received, the due diligence requirement must be strictly observed (see Gurevitch v [*2]Goodman, 269 AD2d 355 [2000]). Herein, the testimony adduced at the traverse hearing clearly established that the process server made numerous attempts to serve the summons and complaint on defendant at his residence, and also attempted service at defendant's place of business. Subsequently, the process server affixed a copy of the summons and complaint to the door of defendant's dwelling place and mailed copies of same to defendant's last known residence by first class mail.

In view of the foregoing, it is clear that defendant was served with the summons and complaint. Accordingly, the court below properly denied defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment since defendant failed to establish a reasonable excuse [*3]
for his default and failed to even assert a meritorious defense to the action (see CPLR 317, 5015 [a]; see also Czarnik v Urban, 10 AD3d 627 [2004]).

Weston Patterson, J.P., Golia and Belen, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: February 27, 2006