We Defend You Against
Sharinn & Lipshie, P.C.

The Langel firm will defend consumers against New York state court collection lawsuits brought by Sharinn & Lipshie, P.C. In appropriate cases, we may investigate claims against Sharinn & Lipshie, P.C. for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and other applicable laws.

Sharinn & Lipshie, P.C. is a high volume debt collection law firm that brings thousands of cases against consumers each year. It represents banks, lenders and third party buyers.

As of March 2014, Sharinn & Lipshie, P.C. has represented plaintiffs in consumer debt actions in at least 20,826 cases in Kings County alone.

Unifund CCR, LLC Unable to Prove Ownership of Consumer Debt; Case Dismissed

Sharinn & Lipshie, P.C. Unsuccessfully Represent Plaintiff, as Court Dismisses Action due to Process Server's Failure to Serve

In Colonial Bank, U.S.A. v. Jacobs (Civ. Ct. New York County, 2000), Sharinn & Lipshie, P.C. represented the Plaintiff at a traverse hearing to determine whether a process server effectuated proper service on Defendant.

The process server attempted to serve the summons and complaint at Defendant's residence on three successive weekdays, and on each occasion the building's doorman denied the process server access beyond the inner lobby door. On the third attempt, the process server sought to leave the summons and complaint with the doorman for delivery to Defendant. The doorman refused to accept service, and denied the process server permission to affix the papers to the inner lobby door. The process server then affixed the papers to the outer lobby door and mailed copies to Defendant at her residence. Defendant thus brought an action challenging the adequacy of service.

Under CPLR 308(2), when unable to serve a summons and complaint personally to the defendant's actual place or dwelling, a process server must exercise due diligence by first attempting to serve a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant's actual dwelling or place. If unsuccessful, the process server may affix the summons and complaint to the defendant's actual dwelling place. Service on a person of suitable age and discretion is only effective at the defendant's actual dwelling. Beyond that proximity to the intended party, there is an inference that the delivery is "reasonably likely" to fail.

The court found that the server made no attempt to serve Defendant by leaving the papers in the doorman's general vicinity and informing the doorman that he was depositing the papers there for Defendant. The requirement of proper service by affixing the summons and compliant is that the defendant is "made aware" of the service either by verbal communication or conduct from the process server. If the person being informed is a substitute person of suitable age and discretion – the doorman – due process requires that the "process server communicate sufficient information… reasonably calculated to assure that the person ultimately to be served" is informed.

The court found that the process server did inform the doorman of the intent to serve Defendant. However, the process server simply posted the documents to the outer door without communicating to the doorman that the purpose of affixing the papers was for him to forward them to Defendant. In addition, the court found that affixing the papers to the exterior door was an unreliable form of service.

The court accordingly found that the process server's conduct fell short of due process and did not satisfy CPLR 308. Because the court never obtained jurisdiction over Defendant, the action was dismissed.

Sharinn & Lipshie, P.C. Biographical Information

Sharinn & Lipshie, P.C. is a domestic professional corporation incorporated in New York and is principally located at 333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 302, Uniondale, New York, 11553.

Internet Marketing Experts The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.