The case law, which Respondents cite, is clear: “‘where the person to be served is himself clearly attempting to resist or evade service,'” the papers “may be ‘left in close proximity to the person to be served.'” Margouleff v. Beck, No. 18-cv-7334 (RA), 2019 WL 3296989, at *5 (S.D.N.Y July 23, 2019) (quoting Prof'l Billing Res., Inc. v. Haddad, 183 Misc.2d 829, 832 (N.Y.C. Civ. Ct. 2000)); see Jane Doe Iv. Karadzic, No. 93-cv-0878 (PKL), 1996 WL 194298, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 1996) (ruling that a party was properly served when, after ignoring a process server, the papers were dropped in his vicinity as he walked away); Melkaz Int lInc. v. Flavor Innovation Inc., 167 F.R.D. 634, 642 n.6 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (explaining that, “under CPLR § 308(1),” service “may be accomplished by leaving [the papers] in the general vicinity of a person who resists service”) (internal quotation marks omitted); McDonald v. Ames Supply Co., Inc., 22 N.Y.2d 111, 115-16, 238 N.E.2d 726, 728, 291 N.Y.S.2d 328, 332 (1968)).
Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d 232, 247 (2d Cir. 1995); see also Margouleff v. Beck, 18 Civ. 7334 (RA), 2019 WL 3296989, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2019) (“Personal service upon an individual within the jurisdiction of the court.
See Old Republic Ins. Co. V. Pac. Fin. Servs. of Am., Inc., 301 F.3d 54, 57 (2d Cir. 2002) (holding that a “sworn denial of receipt of service . . . rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the process server's affidavit and necessitates an evidentiary hearing”); see also Margouleff v. Beck, No. 18-cv-7334(RA), 2019 WL 3296989, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2019). The parties shall submit witness lists and exhibits by May 9, 2024
It can hold an evidentiary hearing to determine contested facts relating to personal jurisdiction. See Margouleff v. Beck, No. 18-cv-7334, 2019 WL 3296989, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2019). Or it can consolidate discovery on personal jurisdiction issues with discovery on the merits and defer ruling on the personal jurisdiction issue until trial.