Coyne v. Coyne

Cardamone, J.P., and Callahan, J. (dissenting).

We dissent from the view expressed by the majority that service on Sandra Coyne pursuant to CPLR 308 (subds 2, 4) was'shown to be “impracticable” so as to permit service under CPLR 308 (subd 5). Because service under this subdivision is directed by court order following an ex parte application, supporting papers upon which such order is based must establish the necessity for it. Here that demonstration is insufficient. Special Term had just one affidavit before it — an attorney’s affidavit — only a single paragraph of which is based upon the…