On December 14, 2024, Justice Bannon of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Gupta v. Gupta, 2024 NY Slip Op. 34411(U), allowing a plaintiff to serve a defendant by express mail plus e-mail to the defendant’s son, explaining:
The plaintiff also moves pursuant to CPLR 308(5) for leave to serve Amit Gupta and Sushil Gupta by alternate means. Specifically, he requests to serve (1) defendant Amit Gupta by email at his work and personal email addresses, as well as his address in Dubai via DHL or Federal Express, and (2) defendant Sushila Gupta by DHL or Federal Express to her address in Dubai, as well as to Amit (her son) via email with a request that he deliver them to her. . . . The court grants the primary relief requested.
It is well established that CPLR 308(5) vests a court with the discretion to direct an alternative method of service of process when it has determined that the methods set forth in CPLR 308 (1), (2) and (4) are impracticable (CPLR308[5). The impracticability standard does not require the applicant to satisfy the more stringent standard of due diligence under CPLR 308(4). It does require that the method approved by the court be reasonably calculated under the circumstances to apprise the defendant of the action. Furthermore, there is nothing necessarily improper about the use of e-mail service.
In light of these standards and under the circumstances of this case, the proposed methods of service on Amit Gupta – by e-mail at has personal and email addresses, as well as by DHL or Federal Express at the home address, and on Sushila Gupta – by DHL or Federal Express at her home address and by an email message sent to her son with the papers attached and a request to send them to Sushil, are reasonably calculated to apprise them of a pending lawsuit. While generally the probability of a message or papers being passed from one defendant to another upon request of the plaintiff would be low, here the two defendants are son and mother who reside together in a combined apartment, and the plaintiff is not a stranger but is their brother and son. Moreover, service by DHL or Federal Express is also directed as to defendant Sushil Gupta, which alone could be sufficient.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).