On July 25, 2025, the Fourth Department issued a decision in Seebald v. Spoonley, 2025 NY Slip Op. 04324, holding that service on a person of suitable age and discretion was valid if the plaintiff had no reason to know of a dispute between the recipient and the defendant, explaining:
We agree with plaintiff that the court erred in granting vacatur to the parent defendants under CPLR 5015 (a) (4) based on its determination that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the parent defendants due to ineffective service of process. We note that on appeal there is no dispute that Shane was the person served by plaintiff and that he was then residing at, and received process at, the dwelling place he shared with the parent defendants. There also is no dispute that plaintiff complied with the mailing requirements of CPLR 308 (2). Rather, we conclude that the court erred in granting the motion on the basis that Shane was not a person of suitable age and discretion due to a purported conflict of interest with the parent defendants.
Under CPLR 308 (2), service may be made upon a person of suitable age and discretion. In that respect, the person to whom delivery is made must objectively be of sufficient maturity, understanding and responsibility under the circumstances so as to be reasonably likely to convey the summons to the defendant. Indeed, the criterion should be whether the person can be expected to advise the defendant of the service. A person would not be considered a person of suitable age and discretion where their interests in the proceeding were sufficiently adverse to the party for whom they were accepting service. Furthermore, good faith is implicit in the spirit of the statutory scheme. If a plaintiff knows, or should know, that service according to CPLR 308 (2) will not afford notice, then, by definition, it is not reasonably calculated to afford notice, and is constitutionally infirm.
Here, there is no evidence in the record to support a determination that plaintiff was aware, or should have been aware, of any alleged conflict between Shane and the parent defendants. We cannot conclude that Shane had a conflict of interest with the parent defendants and, therefore, was not a person of suitable age and discretion, merely because he is a codefendant. Moreover, on the record before us, we note that this is not a case where plaintiff can be charged with any knowledge that service upon Shane with respect to his parents might be deficient. Thus, based on the evidence adduced at the traverse hearing, we conclude that plaintiff established that Shane was a person of suitable age and discretion for purposes of serving his parents.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).