## Facts

- A wife filed a divorce action against her husband in New York Supreme Court, New York County.
- The parties married in 2009 but never lived together.
- The husband left his last known address, reported he had no fixed residence or place of employment, and avoided being served.
- The wife lacked a current residential address, workplace address, or email address for the husband.
- A private investigator could not locate a valid address for service.
- The wife asserted that her only reliable means of contacting the husband was through his Facebook account, which she used to communicate with him.
- The wife sought an ex parte order to serve the divorce summons solely by Facebook private message under DRL § 232 and CPLR 308(5).

## Issues

1. Whether service by the methods in CPLR 308(1), (2), and (4) was impracticable, permitting court-directed service under CPLR 308(5).
2. Whether service of a divorce summons solely by Facebook private message, with court-imposed safeguards, was reasonably calculated to provide notice consistent with due process.

## Decision

- The court granted the wife’s ex parte application.
- The court found service under CPLR 308(1), (2), and (4) impracticable because the husband had no known dwelling, place of business, or other physical location where service could be made.
- The court authorized service via Facebook private message as the best available method to provide actual notice on this record.
- The court required safeguards, including repeated Facebook messages over successive weeks and follow-up telephone contact to alert the husband that the summons had been sent via Facebook.

## Legal Principles

- In a divorce action, personal delivery is the preferred method of service, but alternative methods may be used when permitted by DRL § 232 and the CPLR.
- CPLR 308(5) allows a court to order an alternative service method, even if not enumerated in the statute, when service under CPLR 308(1), (2), and (4) is impracticable.
- Any court-directed method under CPLR 308(5) must satisfy due process by being reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to apprise the defendant of the action and allow an opportunity to be heard.
- Social-media service may be approved when the plaintiff shows the account belongs to the defendant, the defendant uses it with sufficient regularity to infer likely receipt, and additional steps are ordered to increase the probability of actual notice.

## Conclusion

The court held that where traditional service methods were impracticable and the plaintiff demonstrated the defendant’s ownership and active use of a Facebook account, service of a divorce summons by Facebook private message—combined with repeated attempts and confirmatory telephone notice—could satisfy CPLR 308(5) and constitutional due process.


Baidoo v. Blood-Dzraku, 48 Misc. 3d 309 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cnty. 2015)