It is Ordered that this motion by plaintiff for entry of a default judgment is denied, as the Court is not persuaded that plaintiff had exercised due diligence before serving defendant pursuant to CPLR 308, subdivision 4, where the record establishes that the process server apparently had knowledge that defendant "Nagi was the preivous (sic) owener (sic) of the store" situated at the address of the nail and mail service defendant and that the process server nevertheless had been instructed to "do nail & mail as per atty." In this circumstance, since it would appear that the summons and complaint were not affixed to defendant's "actual place of business, dwelling place or usual abode," CPLR 308, subd. 4, the fact that the United States Postmaster has indicated that defendant Nagi's address was "good as addressed" to him at his apparent former location is unavailing to demonstrate that jurisdiction properly has been conferred over said defendant. Further, the Court is not persuaded that the line of cases holding that a defendant's failure to timely have updated his current address with the Department of Motor Vehicle, in accordance with Vehicle and Traffic Law Section 505, subdivision 5, precludes that defendant from successfully attacking a nail and mail service at his former address, warrants a different result herein. Unlike all of the cases reviewed by this Court, none had involved the circumstance presented at bar where plaintiff apparently is charged with knowledge that defendant in fact no longer resided at the premises where service purportedly had been effected.

Dated: April 29, 2008

White Plains, New York

_________________________________

Mary H. Smith

J.S.C.

Law Offices of Michael Singer, P.C. [*2]

Attys. For Pltf.

777 Third Avenue, 35th fl.

New York, New York 10017