Opinion
December 27, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Santucci, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We reject the appellant's contentions that the plaintiff failed to deliver the summons and complaint to a person of suitable age and discretion at his dwelling place (see, CPLR 308; Sutro Co. v Valenzuela, 113 A.D.2d 793). Pursuant to CPLR 308 (2), a summons mailed to the defendant's actual place of business must not indicate "by return address or otherwise, that the communication is from an attorney". However, in this case, the summons and complaint was mailed to the appellant's last known residence rather than to his actual place of business. Thus, the fact that the envelope bore the return address of the plaintiff's attorney did not render the mailing defective (see, CPLR 308; McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C308:2, at 306; cf., Broomes-Simon v Klebanow, 160 A.D.2d 973). Mangano, P.J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.