Under such circumstances, the summons may be left in the general vicinity of the defendant without an actual hand-to-hand delivery to the recipient (seeBossuk v. Steinberg, 58 N.Y.2d 916, 918, 460 N.Y.S.2d 509, 447 N.E.2d 56 ; Sandella v. Hill, 166 A.D.3d 924, 88 N.Y.S.3d 568 ; Hall v. Wong, 119 A.D.3d 897, 990 N.Y.S.2d 579 ). For a defendant to be estopped from raising a claim of defective service, the conduct misleading the process server must be the defendant's conduct, as distinguished from conduct of a third party (seeFeinstein v. Bergner, 48 N.Y.2d 234, 241, 422 N.Y.S.2d 356, 397 N.E.2d 1161 [defendant's father's forwarding a copy of mail service to the defendant, rather than returning it to the plaintiff, does not estop the defendant from contesting improper service]; Continental Hosts v. Levine, 170 A.D.2d 430, 565 N.Y.S.2d 222 ; Borges v. Entra Am., Inc., 7 Misc.3d 1032[A], 2005 N.Y. Slip Op 50845[U], *6, 2005 WL 1355144 [Civ. Ct., N.Y. County] ).
For a defendant to be estopped from raising a claim of defective service, the conduct misleading the process server must be the defendant's conduct, as distinguished from conduct of a third party (see Feinstein v Bergner, 48 N.Y.2d 234, 241 [defendant's father's forwarding a copy of mail service to the defendant, rather than returning it to the plaintiff, does not estop the defendant from contesting improper service]; Continental Hosts v Levine, 170 A.D.2d 430; Borges v Entra Am.,Inc., 7 Misc.3d 1032[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50845[U], *6 [Civ Ct, NY County]).
Petitioner's repeated disregard for the strictures of the agency's record-keeping provisions was a direct violation of the terms of his license and, further, was antithetical to the regulatory goal of assuring honest service practices ( Barr v Dept. of Consumer Affairs of City of New York , 70 NY2d 821, 822-823 [1987] ). Accordingly, trial courts have routinely declined to credit a process server's testimony regarding service when the witness fails to keep records in accordance with the statutory requirements ( Barr at 822-823), fails to bring all papers - such as his logbook - related to the service at issue to a traverse hearing ( First Commercial Bank of Memphis, N.A. v Ndiaye , 189 Misc 2d 523, 526 [Sup Ct 2001] ; Masaryk Towers Corp. v Vance , 12 Misc 3d 1172(A), *9 [Civ Ct 2006] ; Borges v Entra Am., Inc. , 7 Misc 3d 1032(A) [Civ Ct 2005] ), or fails to demonstrate that he was properly licensed ( Borges at *6).
Petitioner's repeated disregard for the strictures of the agency's record-keeping provisions was a direct violation of the terms of his license and, further, was antithetical to the regulatory goal of assuring honest service practices( Barr v. Dept. of Consumer Affairs of City of New York , 70 NY2d 821, 822-823 [1987] ). Accordingly, trial courts have routinely declined to credit a process server's testimony regarding service when the witness fails to keep records in accordance with the statutory requirements (Barr at 822-823), fails to bring all papers - such as his logbook - related to the service at issue to a traverse hearing ( First Commercial Bank of Memphis, N.A. v. Ndiaye , 189 Misc 2d 523, 526 [Sup Ct 2001] ; Masaryk Towers Corp. v. Vance , 12 Misc 3d 1172[A], *9 [Civ Ct 2006] ; Borges v. Entra Am., Inc. , 7 Misc 3d 1032[A] [Civ Ct 2005] ), or fails to demonstrate that he was properly licensed (Borges at *6). The rationale underpinning the decision not to credit a process server who fails to comply with the statutory record keeping requirement is simply one of memory - which is lost over time.
(Glasser v. Keller, 567 N.Y.S.2d 981, 982 [Sup. Ct. 1991])."[W]hen the defendant retires and vacates his or her place of business, the defendant's prior offices do not constitute the defendant's 'actual place of business' for service under CPLR § 308(2) unless defendant's acts were calculated to mislead the plaintiff as to defendant's 'actual place of business.'" (Borges v. Entra America, Inc., 7 Misc.3d 1032(A), 801 N.Y.S.3d 230 [Civ. Ct., N.Y. County 2005]; see also Continental Hosts, Ltd. v. Levine, 170 A.D.2d 430, 565 N.Y.S.2d 222 [2d Dept 1991).
Where there are substantive infirmities in addition to violations of the Administrative Code, then service will be held invalid. See Borges v Entra Am. Inc., 7 Misc 3d 1032A (Civ Ct, NY County 2005). There are no such infirmities here. Under RPAPL § 735, when service is upon a person of suitable age and discretion, the service must be followed by certified or registered mail and by regular mail.
Pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 208.29, a process server called to testify at a traverse hearing is required to bring with him all documentation relative to the service in question. See also Borges v. Entra Am., Inc., 7 Misc 3d 1032A, 801 NYS2d 230 (Civ Ct, NY County 2005). Affidavits of service in appropriate form constitute prima facie evidence that service was properly effectuated.
The Respondent failed to offer any explanation as to his allegation of the failure of the City of New York to personally serve him, other than a blanket denial. See, Borges v. Entra America, Inc., 7 Misc 3d 1032 (A), 2005 WL 1355144 (NY City Civ. Ct). Accordingly, the evidence adduced at the traverse hearing established that the Respondent John DeNoble was properly served by personal service on December 17, 2004 with the requisite predicate notices and on February 7, 2005 with the Petitions concerning both parcels of property in the case at bar.