question about process servers

[NYHawk]

anyone know the way to find out through the dep't of consumer affairs if a process server has a history of having been adjudged to have served something defectively. I remember reading somewhere that if after a traverse a service is declared to be defective the process server of that bad service is obligated to notify the dep't of consumer affairs about the adjudication.

[Anna]

Subchapter W of the Rules of the City of New York, Section 2-236, requires them to notify DCA of all Traverse Hearings, regardless of outcome, within 10 ten, in writing. RCNY is available at Public Access Law Library, 80 Centre St (no free online source). RCNY also has rules re log books, licenses, etc.

See also: GBL, Article 8-A and NYCAC 20-403-9 for more laws L&T process servers ignore everyday...... both available online on senate.state.ny.us

[Anna]

Oldie but goodie from former Judge Callendar:

LEANDER v. BURNETT
The New York Law Journal
December 3, 1997

CIVIL COURT

HOUSING, PART 18K

Judge Callender
* LEANDER v. BURNETT--After a traverse hearing the Court finds that the traverse is sustained and the petition is dismissed for the following reasons:
1. The process server's testimony was completely inconsistent and contradictory.
2. The log book was not designed to and failed to provide all the information required by the General Business Law (hereinafter referred to as the "GBL"), or the Rules of the City of New York (hereinafter referred to as the "RCNY") which were promulgated by the Department of Consumer Affairs. Some of those deficiencies or insufficiencies are as follows: (See Article 8A of the General Business Law, and Subchapter W of the Rules of the City of New York).
A. The entries in the log book do not indicate the date or times of the various attempts of service made by the process server. (See section 2-233(1)(2)(iii) and (4) of the RCNY.)
(i) no distinction is made in the log book that manifests what occurred on the first visit and that delineates or distinguishes the second visit (if one was made) from the first visit. (See Sec. 89-cc(2)(L), 89-ee(1) of the General Business Law and Section 2-233(a)(2) and (4) and (5), and (b)(1)(4)(5)(6) and (c)(3) and (5) of the RCNY.)
B. The entries in the log book for the conspicuous service attempted fails to indicate the color of the door, or a description of the type of house, hallways, color of steps, walls, entrance door, elevator door, or composition of hallway floors. Such information is required by Section 89-cc(2)(h) of the GBL and Section 2-233(b)(1) of the RCNY.
C. The pages in the log book are not kept in chronological order and were improperly paginated. (See Section 89-cc of the GBL and Section 2-233(b)(5) of the RCNY.)
D. The corrections made by the process server in the log book were admittedly not made by drawing a straight line through the inaccurate entry and by then clearly printing the accurate information directly above the inaccurate entry as is required by Section 89-cc of the GBL and Section 2-233(b)(6) of the RCNY.
E. The log book fails to indicate when conspicuous service is made, how, when and where the documents were affixed. (See section 2-233(b)(1) of the RCNY.
F. The log book fails to indicate when the affidavit of service was filed with the Court. (See Section 89-cc(2)(m) of the GBL, and Section 89-ee(1) of the GBL.)
G. No record is kept in the log book of the certified mail receipt numbers and with regard to some of the respondents the certified mail receipts were lost or misplaced by the process server. (See Section 2-233(b)(4) of the RCNY.)
3. The process server failed to serve John and Doe and provide proof of the required service upon them. There was no mention of service upon them in the log book.
Based on the flagrant disregard of the aforementioned Laws, Rules and Regulations regarding process serving, this Court has no choice but to find that the service was improper. It is one thing to have minor infractions or deficiencies. It is quite another to completely ignore the law. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed and a copy of this decision will be forwarded to the Department of Consumers Affairs. Unfortunately, this Court sees too many process servers come to testify who are completely unfamiliar with the laws and regulations concerning the serving of process as well as how to keep records and maintain their log books. Apparently more training needs to be provided to the process servers by the Department of Consumer Affairs. I trust something will be done to stop this wave of ignorance and disregard of the law. The problem is that those who suffer most are those who wind up being unlawfully evicted. Too often they are the least vocal and are likely to provide the smallest amount of resistance or self defense.
This decision constitutes the order of the Court.