23 Cited authorities

Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co.
339 U.S. 306 (1950) Cited 10,422 times 19 Legal Analyses
Holding that due process requires a hearing "appropriate to the nature of the case"
Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins
304 U.S. 64 (1938) Cited 20,616 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues
Henderson v. United States
517 U.S. 654 (1996) Cited 977 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the 120-day provision in Rule 4 is not jurisdictional and may be extended at the discretion of the district court
Zapata v. City of New York
502 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2007) Cited 497 times
Holding dismissal was not abuse of discretion where no good cause existed for delay of service until four days after 120-day period had expired
Walker v. Hutchinson City
352 U.S. 112 (1956) Cited 376 times
Holding that publication notice deprived landowner of due process even though collateral attack filed after deadline for appeal had passed
Bogle-Assegai v. Connecticut
470 F.3d 498 (2d Cir. 2006) Cited 193 times
Holding Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-64 "does not authorize service through the Attorney General's office on an individual State employee in his or her individual capacity"
Eastern Refractories Co., Inc. v. Forty Eight Insulations, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 503 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) Cited 154 times
Holding that plaintiff's failure to serve the defendant within 12 0 days was not excusable for good cause because plaintiff "failed to make any reasonable efforts to timely serve the amended complaint"
AIG Managed Market Neutral Fund v. Askin Capital Management, L.P.
197 F.R.D. 104 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) Cited 134 times
Finding that this factor favored plaintiffs even though "some of the individually named Defendants may not have had notice" because "the City has had actual notice"
Dobkin v. Chapman
21 N.Y.2d 490 (N.Y. 1968) Cited 198 times
Holding that service under those circumstances comports with due process
Osrecovery, Inc. v. One Group Intern., Inc.
234 F.R.D. 59 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) Cited 31 times
Finding service of process ineffective as a result of the plaintiff's failure to serve a summons
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 71,368 times 127 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
Section 308 - Personal service upon a natural person
N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 308 Cited 5,266 times
Providing for "nail and mail" service and for service "in such manner as the court, upon motion without notice, directs, if service is impracticable under paragraphs one, two and four of this section"

Eng et al v. The Nice Restaurant, Inc. et al

23 Cited authorities

Holding that due process requires a hearing "appropriate to the nature of the case"

Holding that state law governs substantive issues and federal law governs procedural issues

Holding that the 120-day provision in Rule 4 is not jurisdictional and may be extended at the discretion of the district court

Holding dismissal was not abuse of discretion where no good cause existed for delay of service until four days after 120-day period had expired

Holding that publication notice deprived landowner of due process even though collateral attack filed after deadline for appeal had passed

Holding Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-64 "does not authorize service through the Attorney General's office on an individual State employee in his or her individual capacity"

Holding that plaintiff's failure to serve the defendant within 12 0 days was not excusable for good cause because plaintiff "failed to make any reasonable efforts to timely serve the amended complaint"

Finding that this factor favored plaintiffs even though "some of the individually named Defendants may not have had notice" because "the City has had actual notice"

Holding that service under those circumstances comports with due process

Finding service of process ineffective as a result of the plaintiff's failure to serve a summons

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Providing for "nail and mail" service and for service "in such manner as the court, upon motion without notice, directs, if service is impracticable under paragraphs one, two and four of this section"