Summary
holding that service on a subordinate village employee did not satisfy Civil Procedure Rule 311
Summary of this case from Schaeffer v. Village of OssiningOpinion
October 30, 1989
Adjudged that the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.
The petitioner herein failed to effectuate service in strict compliance with CPLR 403 (c) and 311 (6). In order to obtain jurisdiction over the village, the petitioner was required to personally serve either the "mayor, clerk, or any trustee", as set forth under CPLR 311 (6). Service of the notice of petition upon a receptionist at the office of the respondent village, with instructions that the papers be delivered to the Village Attorney, did not constitute service upon the proper official (see, Matter of Eso v County of Westchester, 141 A.D.2d 542; see also, Conway v Bano Buick, 88 A.D.2d 609; cf., Gandolfo v Village of Ossining, 4 A.D.2d 762).
In view of the above disposition, we need not reach the remaining issues raised by the parties. Spatt, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.