CPLR 308(5)

Understanding CPLR 308(5): When Traditional Service Methods Fall Short

Service of process is a fundamental requirement in civil litigation, ensuring defendants receive proper notice of legal proceedings against them. However, what happens when a defendant cannot be located through conventional means? New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) provides alternative service methods, including CPLR 308(5), which allows service upon the Secretary of State when other methods prove impracticable.

The application of CPLR 308(5) can vary significantly depending on the court and judge hearing the case. This procedural variation creates uncertainty for practitioners navigating service of process challenges, particularly when dealing with defendants who may have relocated or are otherwise difficult to locate. Understanding when courts will find traditional service methods “impracticable” is crucial for successful litigation strategy.

CPLR 308(5) serves as a safety valve in New York’s service of process scheme, permitting plaintiffs to proceed with litigation even when defendants cannot be located through personal delivery, suitable age and discretion service, or business service. The statute requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that service under CPLR 308(1), (2), or (4) is “impracticable.” Courts have struggled to define this standard consistently, leading to divergent outcomes in cases with similar factual circumstances.

Case Background

In Fontanez v. PV Holding Corp., the plaintiff sought to serve defendant Mr. Yu, who could not be located at any known address. The plaintiff attempted to locate Yu through multiple investigative channels before resorting to CPLR 308(5) service upon the Secretary of State.

The plaintiff hired a professional process server who conducted comprehensive database searches including the Department of Motor Vehicles records, “Premium People Search,” and “IRB Search” databases. These efforts failed to produce a current address for the defendant. The plaintiff then served the summons and complaint on the New York Secretary of State and mailed notice by registered mail to Yu’s last known address.

The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that traditional service methods were truly impracticable. The motion court granted the plaintiff’s application for CPLR 308(5) service, and the defendant appealed to the First Department challenging this determination.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Fontanez v PV Holding Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 02173 (1st Dept. 2020)

This one is interesting as I encounter these 308(5) cases and I get different results depending on who the the judge is.

“The motion court properly determined that service upon Mr. Yu pursuant to CPLR 308(1), (2), or (4) was impracticable. Plaintiff served the summons and complaint on the Secretary of State of New York and mailed notice of this service with a copy of the pleadings to defendant Yu by registered mail to his last known address. She also hired a process server, who attempted to obtain Mr. Yu’s address through the Department of Motor Vehicles and through people search databases, including “Premium People Search” and “IRB Search.” Further, the motion court properly concluded that plaintiff’s attempts to serve through the Chinese Central Authority in accordance with the Hague convention would have been futile because she did not have defendant’s correct address (see Born To Build, LLC v Saleh, 139 AD3d 654, 656 ). Plaintiff was not required to show due diligence to meet the impracticability threshold under CPLR 308(5) (see Franklin v Winard, 189 AD2d 717 ).”

Legal Significance

The First Department’s decision in Fontanez provides important clarity on what level of investigative effort satisfies the “impracticability” standard for CPLR 308(5) service. The court’s holding that plaintiffs need not demonstrate “due diligence” represents a relaxed standard compared to some other jurisdictions’ service requirements. Instead, plaintiffs must show that reasonable attempts through standard investigative channels failed to locate the defendant.

The court’s approval of multiple database searches—including DMV records and commercial people-search services—establishes a practical roadmap for practitioners. These readily available investigative tools provide sufficient foundation for impracticability findings when they fail to produce usable address information. The decision suggests that hiring a professional process server who conducts such searches will generally satisfy judicial scrutiny.

Significantly, the court also addressed international service considerations under the Hague Convention. The decision confirms that attempting service through the Chinese Central Authority would have been futile without a current address for the defendant. This prevents defendants from arguing that plaintiffs must exhaust international service options before resorting to CPLR 308(5), at least when the plaintiff lacks basic location information needed for those methods.

The varying judicial approaches to CPLR 308(5) mentioned in Jason Tenenbaum’s analysis reflect the inherently fact-specific nature of impracticability determinations. While Fontanez provides helpful guidance, practitioners must remain aware that different judges may require more or less extensive investigative efforts depending on the circumstances and the defendant’s apparent efforts to avoid service.

Practical Implications

For plaintiffs seeking to utilize CPLR 308(5) service, this decision establishes a minimum baseline of investigative effort. At a minimum, plaintiffs should hire professional process servers who conduct searches through government databases (particularly DMV records) and at least two commercial people-search databases. Documenting these search attempts through affidavits becomes essential for defending against jurisdictional challenges.

The decision also confirms that service upon the Secretary of State must be coupled with mailing notice to the defendant’s last known address by registered mail. This dual requirement ensures defendants receive actual notice when possible while protecting the plaintiff’s ability to proceed when the defendant’s current whereabouts are unknown. Practitioners must carefully document both components of this service method.

Defendants facing CPLR 308(5) service have limited options for challenging jurisdiction under the Fontanez framework. Simply arguing that the plaintiff could have conducted additional searches will likely prove insufficient. Instead, defendants must demonstrate that traditional service methods were actually practicable—for example, by showing the plaintiff knew or should have known of a current address where personal service could have been accomplished.

Key Takeaway

The First Department’s decision in Fontanez demonstrates that comprehensive search efforts through multiple databases and official channels can satisfy the impracticability standard for CPLR 308(5) service. Notably, courts do not require extensive due diligence showings when traditional service methods have been exhausted through reasonable investigative efforts. This ruling provides helpful guidance for practitioners dealing with procedural challenges in service of process cases.

Related Articles

• It is not 5015 but 317
• CPLR 312-a service was not properly effected, complaint dismissed
• CPLR 5015(a)(1) in New York Personal Injury Cases, Setting Aside Default Judgments