DECISION AND ORDER
EILEEN A. RAKOWER, J.S.C.
This within Foreclosure Action was commenced by Plaintiff as a result of Defendants' alleged breach of the Declaration/By-Laws, due to their alleged failure to pay common charges and other monthly charges dating back to January 2008. Plaintiff brings this motion: (a) pursuant to CPLR §308(5) and §311(b), permitting Plaintiff to serve Defendants, Raymond Houle ("Houle") and 9221-0228 Quebec, Inc. ("collectively, Defendants") with the summons and complaint by a means other than one set forth under CPLR §301(1) through (4) and CPLR §311(a)(1) through (8); and (b) extending the period of time for Plaintiff to file an affidavit of service with the court, following the alternate service upon Defendants Houle and 9221-0228 Quebec, Inc. beyond the 120 day limit set forth in CPLR §306(b).
Defendant Elizabeth Hazan ("Hazan") purchased Unit 1A within the building located at 1 East 62nd Street, New York, NY. On August 15, 2011, Hazan allegedly gifted the unit to Raymond Houle. Houle is a Canadian citizen who, except for the subject premises, has no ties to the State of New York. On December 9, 2011, Houle allegedly gifted the unit to 9221-0228 Quebec, Inc.
On August 21, 2012, a licensed process server approached Defendant Hazan within the lobby of the building located at 1 East 62nd Street, New York, NY and served Hazan with a copy of the summons and complaint. Plaintiff intended this as service upon Defendant 9221-0228 Quebec, Inc., as it understood Hazan to be an "agent" of the Defendant corporation.
Following a May 7, 2013 traverse hearing, the Court deemed that service upon Hazan was sufficient in her individual capacity. It also found that service had not been completed upon 9221-0228 Quebec, Inc., as there was no testimony that a separate service upon the corporation was made, nor was there any testimony that two sets of papers were served on Hazan or that the process server asked Hazan if she was authorized to accept service on behalf of the corporation. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice as to 9221-0228 Quebec, Inc.
As alleged by Plaintiff, 9221-0228 Quebec, Inc. is a Canadian corporation that is not registered with the Secretary of State of the State of New York. Plaintiff asserts that it searched the "Canadien [sic] equivalent of the Secretary of State of New York State" to locate the address of 9221-0228 Quebec, Inc. at which Plaintiff would be able to serve the corporation and its President. The February 2013 report listed 9221-0228 Quebec, Inc.'s address as 11020 Armand-Lavergne, Montreal-North, Quebec. Additionally, an affidavit submitted on November 12, 2012, on behalf of 9221-0228 Quebec, signed by its President Houle, listed the business location as 112020 Armand-Lavergne. However, Plaintiffs were unable to serve either party at either of these two addresses.
On November 29, 2012, Plaintiff attempted to serve 9221-0228 Quebec, Inc. and Houle at another address: 3765 St-Kevin, Apt 9, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. However, upon attempting to serve Defendants at that address, Plaintiff alleges to have learned that Houle had moved from that address in July 2012, and did not leave a forwarding address. Thus, Plaintiffs have been unable to locate 9221-0228 Quebec, Inc. and Houle.
With regard to service upon Houle, CPLR §308(5) states that "Personal service upon a natural person shall be made by any of the following methods":
(5) in such manner as the court, upon motion without notice, directs, if service is impracticable under paragraphs one, two or four of this section.
Regarding service on 9221-0228 Quebec, Inc., CPLR §311(b), "Personal service upon a corporation or governmental subdivision", provides:
(b) If service upon a domestic or foreign corporation within the one hundred twenty days allowed by section three hundred six-b of this article is impracticable under paragraph one of subdivision (a) of this section or any other law, service upon the corporation may be made in such manner, and proof of service may take such form, as the court, upon motion without notice, directs.
When service is impractical by traditional means, the Court is permitted to fashion a means of service which are reasonably calculated to provide the party with notice of the action.
(Tremont Fed Sav. & Loan Assoc, v. Ndanusa, 144 A.D.2d [1st Dept 1968]; Franklin v. Winard, 189 A.D.2d 717 [1st Dept 1993]).
Here, Plaintiff has provided evidence of its efforts to locate both Defendants Houle and 9221-0228 Quebec, Inc. These efforts have proven to be ineffective as a result of Defendants having moved from the ...