Opinion
February 1, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ritter J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff failed to establish either proper service on the defendants or that he had a meritorious claim. The plaintiff alleged "nail and mail" service upon the defendants (CPLR 308). The affidavit of substituted service, on its face, demonstrates a lack of due diligence warranting resort to such service (Kaszovitz v Weiszman, 110 A.D.2d 117, 120).
Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to establish that he sustained serious injury as required by Insurance Law § 5104 (Licari v Elliott, 57 N.Y.2d 230; Caiazzo v Crespi, 124 A.D.2d 623). Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.