In PNMAC Mortgage Opportunity Fund Investors, LLC v. Md Abu Noushad, Index No. 503521/2014, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Kings County Supreme Court order, which upheld the validity of service of process on the defendant and denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the foreclosure complaint for insufficient service of process. The court’s decision to uphold the validity of service of process allows the plaintiff to enforce the judgment of foreclosure and sale by scheduling a sale to complete this 2014 foreclosure.

The decision underscores that when personal service is unsuccessful despite diligent efforts, the law permits alternate methods, such as “nail and mail” service under CPLR 308(4). In this case, the Plaintiff presented evidence of more than fifty attempts to locate the defendant, including multiple visits to addresses associated with him and inquiries to the United States Postal Service. Those inquiries resulted in a new address—559 Bristol Street in Brooklyn—at which the process server made several attempts at service on different days and times.

The defendant submitted an affidavit denying any connection to that address. However, the Court found that his unsubstantiated denial was insufficient to overcome the presumption of proper service raised by the process server’s affidavit. In particular, the defendant failed to provide any documentation or an affidavit from a current resident of the address in question to support his claims. The Court noted that, contrary to the defendant’s assertions, the address had been identified by the U.S. Postal Service as his new residence rather than merely a last known address.

By affirming the lower court’s decision, the appellate court has reinforced the principle that alternative service is valid when plaintiffs make credible, good-faith efforts to locate a defendant and follow the correct procedures. The ruling also confirms that conclusory denials of residence, unsupported by evidence, will not suffice to defeat an otherwise valid attempt at service. As a result, the foreclosure action may now proceed on the merits.

The Plaintiff was represented by Friedman Vartolo LLP, with attorneys Franklin K. Chiu and Ronald P. Labeck as lead appellate counsel.