Opinion
December 21, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.).
Ordered that the orders are affirmed, with one bill of costs.
Evidence was presented at the hearing to the effect that a series of visits to the defendant's residence were made in an endeavor to effect proper service upon her. The court nevertheless expressed "serious doubts as to whether the prior attempts at service over a short span of time on a summer weekend and during working hours, without any further investigation, qualified as `due diligence'".
In accordance with the principle that the affidavit of service of the process server is not admissible into evidence to prove that service has been effected in conformity with the CPLR (Carlino v Cook, 126 A.D.2d 597; Anton v Amato, 101 A.D.2d 819, 820-821), we conclude that the plaintiff failed to sustain its burden of establishing the existence of personal jurisdiction (Lexington Ins. Co. v Schuyler Bumpers, 125 A.D.2d 554). Nor was it an abuse of discretion to deny the plaintiff's request for a second adjournment or a reopening of the hearing in order to take the testimony of the recalcitrant process server (see, Cuevas v Cuevas, 110 A.D.2d 873). Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.