New York had a similar statute which it interpreted in a similar manner. Kleila v. Miller, 1 A.D.2d 697, 147 N.Y.S.2d 589, 591; Riker v. Curtis, 10 Misc. 125, 30 N.Y.S. 940; Guilford v. Brody, 237 App. Div. 716, 262 N.Y.S. 722; Santaniello v. Levy, 23 Misc.2d 145, 201 N.Y.S.2d 309; Klein v. Biben, 185 Misc. 835, 57 N.Y.S.2d 775. We have found no other states with a similar statute and none have been pointed out to us.
A similar statute in New York has been so construed. Kleila v. Miller, 1 App. Div. 2d 697, 147 NYS2d 589, 591 (1955); Guilford v. Brody, 237 App. Div. 726, 262 NYS 722, 724 (1933). See also Santaniello v. Levy, 23 Misc.2d 145, 201 NYS2d 309, 310 (1960).
(CPLR Changes, Summary of Major Civil Procedural Changes Enacted During the 1965 Legislative Session, Prepared by the Staff of the Judicial Conference.) (See, also, Memorandum of Judicial Conference, McKinney's 1965 Session Laws of New York, p. 2041; Supplementary Practice Commentary, by Prof. Joseph M. McLaughlin, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 7B, CPLR, 1965 Cumulative Pocket Part, p. 14. Also, see, cases decided before the amendment: Barko v. Mollica, 5 A.D.2d 699; Kleila v. Miller, 1 A.D.2d 697; Keating v. Quint, 29 Misc.2d 98.) It is obvious that the change in wording of the section merely clarifies the meaning and intent of the original language of the provision.
"Where defendant is within the State, section 17 of the Civil Practice Act requires that the summons be delivered to the Sheriff of the county in which the defendant resides". ( Kleila v. Miller, 1 A.D.2d 697.) There is no question that the defendant was a resident of Queens when the plaintiff delivered the summons to the Sheriff of Nassau County.