Opinion
September 28, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Steinhardt, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff's process server testified at the hearing, in accordance with his affidavit of service, that he had made three separate attempts to effectuate personal service upon the defendant. Grace Telesco at her residence: at 8:54 P.M. on Monday, November 1, 1993; at 12:22 P.M. on Tuesday, November 2, 1993; and at 6:04 A.M. on Wednesday, November 3, 1993. On the first and last of these occasions, a woman spoke to him from inside the house but declined to identify herself and refused to open the door. On November 3, 1993, when the woman inside instructed him to "leave" his papers "downstairs", the process server taped two copies of the summons and complaint to the "inside front door" On the same day he mailed two copies of the summons and complaint to Telesco's residence, and filed proof of service with the clerk of the court.
We find that these efforts to serve the defendant personally at her dwelling place, including occasions when she might reasonably have been expected to be at, home, constituted sufficient due diligence to justify substituted service under CPLR 308 (4) ( see, e.g., Kelly v. Lewis, 220 A.D.2d 485; Wagner Son v. Schreiber, 210 A.D.2d 143; Rodriguez v. Khamis, 201 A.D.2d 715; Brunson v. Hill, 191 A.D.2d 334; Hochhauser v. Bungeroth, 179 A.D.2d 431).
Rosenblatt, J.P., O'Brien, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.