Opinion
August 23, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
At the outset we note that the instant proceeding was not jurisdictionally defective merely because the order to show cause provided that service upon the appellants be made pursuant to CPLR 308 on or before August 11, 1989, the last date upon which said proceeding could be timely commenced (see, Matter of Fuentes v. D'Apice, 122 A.D.2d 904; Warner v. Canary, 112 A.D.2d 1073).
Moreover, we find that the process server exercised due diligence in attempting to effectuate service on the appellant Kathleen Howard. The process server made four separate visits to Ms. Howard's home. Two of the visits were in the evening, one was in the morning and the last was in the afternoon.
We agree with the Supreme Court that the appellant Del Santo had no authority to convene the subject caucus (see, Election Law § 6-108). Accordingly, the actions taken at that caucus were properly found to be null and void.
In light of the foregoing, we need not consider the appellants' remaining contentions. Kunzeman, J.P., Eiber, Spatt, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.