SERVICE VIA E-MAIL WAS “INEFFECTIVE”
RR began a divorce proceeding by serving her husband with the pleadings via e-mail. After her husband rejected those papers, RR asked the Westchester County Supreme Court to approve that service effort, claiming (without proof) that her husband had previously agreed to accept electronic service of papers. (She also sought to “consolidate” the divorce case with another action that was pending before the same court.)
When her request was denied, and the case was dismissed for “lack of personal jurisdiction,” RR appealed.
On review, the Appellate Division, Second Department, noted that RR was required to make an attempt at personal delivery before resorting to other service methodologies. Since she was unable to unequivocally demonstrate that her spouse had consented to receive the paperwork in the manner RR utilized, and since there was no court order authorizing what she did, the AD2 agreed that the effort was “ineffective,” jurisdiction was lacking, and that the litigation’s dismissal was appropriate.
That didn’t serve her well at all.
# # #
DECISION