The following papers numbered 1 - 12 were read on the pre-answer motion by defendant, Warwick Properties, Inc., to dismiss the complaint on the basis, inter alia, of lack of personal jurisdiction and plaintiff's cross-motion to deem the filing of proof of service on defendant, Warwick Properties, Inc., timely nunc pro tunc:

Notice of Motion/ Affirmation (Tunic)/Exhibits A-J

Affidavit (Gratzel)/Exhibits A - D1 - 5

Notice of Cross-Motion/Affirmation (Cohen)/Exhibits A-B 5-7

Affirmation in Opposition and in Further Support (Tunic)/ Exhibit 1

Affidavits/ Exhibits A & B 8 - 12

This action was brought by plaintiff to foreclose on a mechanic's lien filed in the Orange County Clerk's Office on or about February 1, 2017 in the amount of $91,543.63. Said lien was filed against Warwick for the sole reason that they were the owner of the subject premises known [*2]as 7000 Nicholas Brooks Court, New Windsor, New York at the time plaintiff contracted with defendant, Rocker II Drywall Services, LLC. The Summons and Complaint were filed on October 31, 2017.

Warwick moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction as they have not been served within the required 120 days from the date of filing the Summons and Complaint. In opposition, plaintiff alleges that they served process on Warwick pursuant to CPLR 308(4) on February 15, 2018 and asks this court to deem the proof of service timely. Once the "affixing and mailing" was accomplished, the plaintiff was required to file proof of service with the clerk of the court within 20 days of either the affixing or mailing, whichever was later (see CPLR 308[4] ). However proof of service was never filed with the clerk of the court. Plaintiff now moves to file proof of service over a year later and deem it timely filed.

The "failure to file proof of service is a procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, that may be cured by motion or sua sponte by the court in its discretion pursuant to CPLR 2004" (Khan v. Hernandez, 122 AD3d 802, 803 [2d Dept 2014]). In support of their motion, plaintiff submits an Affidavit of Service indicating that Warwick was served at their actual place of business by nail and mail pursuant to CPLR 308(4).

Service on a corporation may not be made in accordance with the substitute methods of service authorized for the personal service of process on individuals. Service under CPLR §308(2) is applicable only to actions against natural persons and is inapplicable to actions against corporations, for which personal service must be made pursuant to §311(1). (Lakeside Concrete Corp. v. Pine Hollow Bldg. Corp., 104 AD2d [2d Dept 1984], aff'd 65 NY2d 865 [1985]). The service envisioned under CPLR § 311(1) upon a corporate officer is in-hand service upon the specified officer. Substitute service under CPLR §308(2) and (4) is available only against individual defendants, and not corporations. (Id.; Strong v. Bi—Lo Wholesalers, 265 AD2d 745 [3rd Dept.1999]; DeZego v. Bruhn, 99 AD2d 823 [2nd Dept.1984]; McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries to CPLR § 311 at page 379). Thus, the "leave and mail" method cannot be used to effect valid service of process on a corporation.

Since personal service was not effectuated upon an individual defendant-corporate officer, "leave and mail" service upon the corporation is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction over the corporate defendant, Warwick. Accordingly, defendant's motion, seeking a dismissal of the claims asserted against them based upon lack of personal jurisdiction, is granted. Therefore, plaintiff's motion to deem proof of service timely filed is denied as moot.

Accordingly it is hereby,

ORDERED that the motion of defendant, Warwick Properties, Inc. (hereinafter "Warwick") dismissing the complaint as against them is granted without costs or attorneys fees; and it is further

ORDERED that the plaintiff's motion is denied.

In light of this determination, the Court need not reach the defendant's remaining contentions.

The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court.