Key Takeaway
New York court clarifies that defendants can be served with legal papers even inside courtrooms, rejecting the misconception that courthouse appearances provide immunity from service.
Court Service Rules: You Can Be Served Even in the Courtroom
Many defendants mistakenly believe that appearing in court provides them with some form of immunity from being served with legal papers in other cases. This misconception can lead to costly mistakes, as demonstrated in a recent New York appellate decision that clarified the rules around service of process in courtrooms.
The case highlights an important principle in New York civil procedure: defendants cannot avoid service simply by being present in court for unrelated matters. Understanding these jurisdictional concepts is crucial for anyone involved in litigation, as improper assumptions about service can result in default judgments and other serious legal consequences.
This decision also touches on broader issues of personal jurisdiction and the various methods courts use to establish authority over defendants, particularly when jurisdictional defenses are raised.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
Sandella v Hill, 2018 NY Slip Op 08051 (2d Dept. 2018)
“According to the defendant, as he was waiting for his case to be called, an unknown person came into the courtroom, called out his name, and dropped some papers on the floor. The defendant indicated that he did not pick the papers up because his attorney told him that he could not be served in court. The Supreme Court, without a hearing, denied the defendant’s motion to vacate the default judgment.”
“If a defendant resists service of process, service may be effected pursuant to CPLR 308(1) by leaving a copy of the summons in the defendant’s general vicinity, provided that the defendant is made aware that this is being done”
(This case rested upon the notion that a non-domiciliary could not be served due a special appearance in New York. The Court held that even if this was true, defendant could have been served outside of New York on a Touza theory pCPLR 302; 313])
Key Takeaway
The court’s decision reinforces that there is no “courthouse sanctuary” rule protecting defendants from service of process. When defendants resist service, courts will allow alternative methods as long as the defendant is made aware that papers are being served, even if they refuse to accept them directly.
