On October 30, 2025, the First Department issued a decision in Diamond Films Netherlands Cooperatief U.A. v. TV Azteca S.A.B. De C.V., 2025 NY Slip Op. 06017, holding that service of process was valid if made as required by contract, even if the defendant did not receive the documents, explaining:
Defendant was validly served with process pursuant to § 23 of the Renegotiation and Free Television Output Agreement between the parties (the Contract). Plaintiff mailed the summons and complaint to the contractually designated person (Horacio Medal) at the contractually designated address (1139 Grand Central Ave., Glendale, California 91201, U.S.A.) using the contractually designated method of certified mail.
It does not matter that the certified mailing was returned because Medal moved, as the burden was on defendant to provide plaintiff with updated service information, which it did not do. The fact that defendant updated its public filings with the California Secretary of State to reflect a new address and service agent was not sufficient to meet this burden, as the Contract specifically required that any modifications to its terms be made in a writing signed by both parties. Although the Contract permitted alternative service on any employee of Azteca America with a copy to the Legal Department of Azteca America, this did not create an implicit requirement that plaintiff search for other employees in the event that Medal was unreachable.
The Contract did not condition service on Medal on his continued association with defendant or its subsidiaries. By expressly designating Medal in the Contract as its agent for service of process and failing to revoke or modify that designation after termination of Medal’s employment at nonparty Azteca International Corporation, defendant imbued Medal with apparent authority to act as its service agent even after his actual authority ended (assuming that it did). It does not matter, for these purposes, that Medal’s new employer’s agreement with defendant expressly disclaimed any agency relationship because there is no indication that plaintiff was aware of this agreement.
The fact that plaintiff pursued many other avenues to ensure that service was properly effected and that defendant had actual notice of this action does not constitute an admission that the contractual service was invalid.
(Internal citations omitted).