## Facts

- Three consolidated New York automobile-accident actions involved defendants who could not be located for service of process.
- Plaintiffs were unable to complete service by the standard methods under CPLR 308(1)–(3) because defendants had moved, disappeared, or could not be found at last-known addresses.
- Trial courts issued ex parte orders under CPLR 308(4) authorizing alternative service methods.
- In one action, the court authorized ordinary-mail service to last-known Pennsylvania addresses after unsuccessful efforts by mail, sheriff inquiries, and attempted statutory motor-vehicle service.
- In another action, the court treated prior attempts (including mail and motor-vehicle service) as sufficient if supplemented by publication.
- In a third action, the court authorized mailing to the defendant’s last-known New York address and delivery of papers to the defendant’s insurer.
- MVAIC and an insurer challenged the service orders as unauthorized by CPLR 308(4) and unconstitutional under due process.
- The Appellate Division upheld the service methods; the Court of Appeals reviewed and affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether CPLR 308(4) authorizes court-directed alternative service methods when service under CPLR 308(1)–(3) is impracticable.
2. Whether the alternative methods approved (mailing, publication, and notice to an insurer) satisfy due process when actual notice to missing defendants is uncertain.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the orders upholding service.
- The court held that CPLR 308(4) grants courts broad discretion to direct alternative service when standard methods are impracticable.
- The court held that due process was satisfied because the ordered methods were reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to provide notice, even if they did not ensure actual notice.
- The court noted that defendants’ disappearance or failure to maintain reachable addresses contributed to the service difficulty.
- The court relied in part on the availability of post-judgment relief procedures for defendants who did not receive timely notice to defend.

## Legal Principles

- CPLR 308(4) permits a court to prescribe an alternative method of service upon a showing that personal delivery, delivery to a suitable person at the dwelling, or delivery to an authorized agent is impracticable.
- “Impracticable” under CPLR 308(4) is not limited to literal impossibility; it allows flexible, case-specific solutions to effect notice.
- Due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the action and afford an opportunity to be heard; it does not require guaranteed actual notice.
- In selecting an alternative method, courts may consider practical realities, including that notice through last-known addresses and insurers may be more effective than publication alone.
- The availability of mechanisms to reopen defaults for lack of timely notice supports the constitutional adequacy of substitute service in appropriate cases.

## Conclusion

The court upheld court-ordered alternative service under CPLR 308(4) for missing or unlocatable defendants, ruling that flexible service methods are permitted when standard service is impracticable and that due process is met by procedures reasonably calculated to provide notice, not by a requirement of actual notice.


Dobkin v. Chapman, 21 N.Y.2d 490, 289 N.Y.S.2d 161, 236 N.E.2d 451 (N.Y. 1968)