Practice point: The Appellate Division affirmed dismissal on the basis that no personal
jurisdiction was acquired over respondents. Petitioner failed to comply
with CPLR 311(a)(1)'s requirement hat the process server tender
process directly to an authorized corporate representative, rather than
an unauthorized person who later hands the process to an officer or
other qualified representative.
Petitioner also failed to properly effectuate service of process by
mail. Although he mailed the summons and petition to respondents, he did
not include two copies of a "statement of service by mail" and an
"acknowledgement of receipt" as required by CPLR 312-a.
Student note: The Appellate Division noted that petitioner's status as a pro se litigant does not excuse the defective service, and the fact that respondents received
actual notice does not confer jurisdiction upon the court.
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: The motion court is limited to the issues on the motion before it.
