Shapiro v. Goldberg — 64 N.Y.S. 88

Majority

p. 88

SHAPIRO et al. v. GOLDBERG.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.

April 19, 1900.)

Headnote

Process—Mailing Summons—Improper Service.

Under New York City Consolidation Act, §§ 1321, 1326, providing that, where personal service cannot be made, a copy of the summons and attachment must be posted on the door of the defendant’s residence, and that the reason for not making personal service must be stated in the return, service by mailing the summons and attachment to the defendant, without stating any reason in the return for not making personal service, was improper, and the court acquired no jurisdiction thereby.

Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Seventh district.

Action by Anna Shapiro and another against Barnet Goldberg. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Argued before BEEKMAN, P. J., and GEEGER1CH and O’GORMAN, JJ.

L. Burkes, for appellant.

L. Levine, for respondents.

The marshal’s return completely ignores the requirements of sections 1326 and 1321 of the consolidation act. The mere mailing of the summons and attachment is ineffectual without posting copies of the same on the door of defendant’s residence, and, where such service is made, the return must recite the reasons for not making personal service. The summons not having been properly served, the court never acquired jurisdiction, and the judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed, with costs.