Plaintiff Thomas A. Kearney, an inmate in the care and custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Service ("DOCCS"), moves ex parte for leave nunc pro tunc to serve Defendant Peter J. McArdle Jr. by mail pursuant to CPLR § 308 (5) in this false arrest and malicious prosecution action. The Summons and Complaint were filed on October 30, 2014. Plaintiff mailed Defendant a copy of the Summons and Complaint via certified mail, return receipt requested on or about January 2, 2015, which was postmarked by Auburn Correctional Facility on January 9, 2015. Plaintiff avers he cannot afford a process server because he is currently incarcerated. Defendant has not appeared.

Due process requires "notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." (Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 US 306, 314 [1950].) Although the due process standard is simply one of reasonable notice, the Court of Appeals has made it clear that "[n]otice received by means other than those authorized by statute does not bring a defendant within the jurisdiction of the court." (Macchia v. Russo, 67 NY2d 592, 594 [1986].)

Section 308 of the CPLR governs personal service upon a natural person. Subdivision (1), (2), and (4) contain an aspect of personal service which Plaintiff asserts he cannot effect for pecuniary reasons. Subdivision (3) is not applicable under these facts. Subdivision (5) permits a court to direct the manner of service if service under the other subdivisions is "impracticable."

Impracticability is a condition precedent to service by mail. (See Liebeskind v. Liebeskind, 86 AD2d 207, 209—10 [1st Dept. 1982] affd 58 NY2d 858 [1983].) "Fundamentally, a court is without power to direct expedient service pursuant to CPLR 308 (5) absent a showing by the moving party that service under CPLR 308(1), (2) or (4) is impracticable." (Cooper-Fry v. Kolket, 245 AD2d 846, 487 [3d Dept. 1997] [citations omitted]; accord David v. Total Identify [*2]Corp., 50 AD3d 1484 [4th Dept. 2008]; Corbo v. Stephens, 272 AD2d 502 [2d Dept. 2000]; see also Tyler v. Selsky, 267 AD2d 522, 522 [3d Dept. 1999] [affirming denial of inmate's ex parte motion for court-ordered service pursuant to CPLR § 308 [5] where inmate failed to demonstrate why service was "impracticable" as to the other CPLR § 308 methods].)

Here, Plaintiff's request must be denied as it fails to demonstrate how service is "impracticable" under the other CPLR § 308 methods so as to warrant court-ordered service by mail. Notwithstanding, Plaintiff has available other viable methods of effecting personal service, including having an individual not a party in this action serving the Defendant, such as a colleague, family member, or law enforcement officer. Plaintiff is also not foreclosed from serving the Summons and Complaint via mail pursuant to CPLR § 312-a, as long as Defendant complies with the acknowledgement requirements therein.

Thereby, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion is DENIED, without prejudice, and all relief requested therein is denied in its entirety.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. This Decision and Order and application papers are being delivered to the Greene County Clerk for filing. Plaintiff is relieved from entering and filing pursuant to CPLR R. 2220, but must serve a copy of this Decision and Order on Defendant with service of the Summons and Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.