County of Nassau v Barrios

County of Nassau v Barrios 2007 NY Slip Op 09719 [46 AD3d 606] December 11, 2007 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, February 13, 2008

County of Nassau, Appellant,
v
Daniel V. Barrios et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

—[*1] Lorna B. Goodman, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Gerald R. Podlesak of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Montesano, P.C., Glen Cove, N.Y. (Theresa Vazquez of counsel), for respondents.

In a civil forfeiture action pursuant to Nassau County Administrative Code § 8-7.0 (g) (L 1939, chs 272, 701-709, as amended), the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), entered July 12, 2006, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Daniel V. Barrios and Daniel E. Barrios which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (8) for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the plaintiff's process server, who attempted to effectuate service of the summons and complaint upon the defendants Daniel V. Barrios and Daniel E. Barrios (hereinafter the defendants) via the "nail and mail" method of service, did not satisfy the "due diligence" requirement of CPLR 308 (4). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for lack of personal jurisdiction (see CPLR 3211 [a] [8]; County of Nassau v Long, 35 AD3d 787, 787-788 [2006]; County of Nassau v Yohannan, 34 AD3d 620, 621 [2006]; County of Nassau v Letosky, 34 AD3d 414, 415 [2006]). Schmidt, J.P., Skelos, Covello and Balkin, JJ., concur.