This doctrine has been followed consistently by the First Department in numerous other cases. See Dunleavy v. Moya, 237 A.D.2d 176, 655 N.Y.S.2d 371 (1st Dep't 1997); Lara v. 1010 E. Tremont Realty Corp., 205 A.D.2d 468, 614 N.Y.S.2d 6 (1st Dep't 1994); see also Union Garage, Inc. v. Wheatle, 108 Misc.2d 77, 437 N.Y.S.2d 52, 53 (1981). In fact, the First Department has explicitly found exercise of due diligence sufficient to satisfy CPLR 308(4) even where it specifically acknowledged that the process server, following adequate unsuccessful attempts to effectuate personal service at defendant's residence, had made no attempt to serve defendant at his place of business.

Service on or near a holiday may not be of significant import where, as here, the defendant has stated that he was not away or unavailable. See Moran v. Harting, 161 Misc 2d 728, 615 NYS2d 225 (Sup. Ct. Westchester County 1994); see also Dunleavy v. Moya, 237 AD2d 176, 655 NYS2d 371 (1st Dep't 1997), appeal dismissed, 90 NY2d 888, 684 NE2d 282, 661 NYS2d 832 (1997) (two attempts during Memorial Day weekend and final attempt on Memorial Day constituted due diligence). Other cases suggest that service on holidays or during holiday weekends does not generally contribute to an overall scheme of due diligence.

Several cases presented by plaintiffs in support of their contention that service was proper make it clear that three attempts to serve a defendant at his home constitutes due diligence justifying service under CPLR 308 (4). (Dunleavy v. Moya, 237 AD2d 176, 655 N.Y.S.2d 176; Lara v. 1010 E. Tremont Realty Corporation 205 AD2d 468, 614 N.Y.S.2d 6.) Moreover, Allstate offers no denial that it was served with the summons and complaint and fails to provide an explanation regarding its failure to answer the complaint.