Ari Teman v. Nathaniel Z. Marmur, et al.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 12, 2026
Docket1:25-cv-08220
StatusUnknown

This text of Ari Teman v. Nathaniel Z. Marmur, et al. (Ari Teman v. Nathaniel Z. Marmur, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ari Teman v. Nathaniel Z. Marmur, et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2026).

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ELECTRONICALLY FILED SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: monn nrc nanan KK DATE FILED:_ 2/12/2026 ARI TEMAN, : Plaintiff, : : 25-cv-08220 (LJL) -v- : : ORDER NATHANIEL Z. MARMUR, et al., : Defendants. : wee KX LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff Ari Teman moves for an order permitting alternative service on Defendants Nathaniel Marmur and Alan Lewis pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) and C.P.L.R. 308(5). The motion is denied. The Court has previously had occasion to set out the relevant legal principles: Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows an individual located within a judicial district of the United States to be served by “following state law for serving a Summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1), (2). Rule 4 makes the state law of either the location where service is effected or the location of the district court equally applicable. /d. In New York, service may be effected upon a person by: (1) personal service; (2) delivery to a “person of suitable age and discretion at the individual’s actual place of business, dwelling or usual abode” and mailing it to the individual; (3) service on an agent; or (4) “affixing the summons” to the individual’s actual place of business, dwelling or usual abode and mailing it to the individual. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 308(1){(4). Furthermore, a court may direct alternative methods of service where service by the enumerated means 1s “impracticable.” N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 308(5). “The meaning of ‘impracticable’ depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In general, plaintiff must make some showing that the other prescribed methods of service could not be made.” Sirius XM Radio Inc. v. Aura Multimedia Corp., 339 F.R.D. 592, 593 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (cleaned up). “The decision to allow alternative service is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Jn re Bystolic Antitrust Litig., 2021 WL 4296647, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 2021) (internal citations omitted). The standard for impracticability under C.P.L.R. § 308(S5) is different

from the more stringent requirement of “due diligence” under C.P.L.R. § 308(4). Impracticability “does not require satisfying due diligence, or even showing that actual prior attempts to serve a party under each and every method provided in the statute have been undertaken.” Hamza v. Yandik, 2022 WL 976888, at *8 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2022) (quoting Kelly v. Lewis, 220 A.D.2d 485, 485 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)). “Even where plaintiffs have imperfectly served defendants, courts have been willing to find impracticability under C.P.L.R. § 308(5) and to direct substitute service, particularly when defendants have participated in the litigation.” Id. Freeman v. Giuliani, 2024 WL 5054913, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2024). Plaintiff has not shown that service by the enumerated means set forth in C.P.L.R. 308(1)–(4) is impracticable. Plaintiff asserts that he transmitted the summons and complaint to Defendant Marmur by WhatsApp and email and that Marmur refused to accept service by those means, declined to waive service, failed to provide a residential address, and caused his law firm to state that they would not accept service on his behalf . Dkt. No. 14 at 1–2. However, while a defendant has “a duty to avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1), he has no duty necessarily to waive service. The consequences of refusing to waive service (when such a waiver is properly requested) without good cause is that the defendant will be required to pay the expenses incurred in making service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). Service by email is not a permitted means of service under C.P.L.R. 308(1)–(4). Marmur was not required to provide a residential address to Plaintiff or to agree that the law firm could accept service on his behalf. Teman has not identified any other efforts he made to identify where Marmur could be served or to mail the summons to him at his actual place of business. N.Y. C.P.L.R. 308(2). Plaintiff makes similar assertions with respect to Defendant Lewis and similar answers apply. If Plaintiff made a proper request to Lewis that he waive service and Lewis declined without good cause, then Lewis will be responsible for the costs of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). That consequence alone may be successful in having Lewis (as well as Marmur) appear in this case. The fact that Plaintiff emailed the summons and complaint to Lewis and asked the firm to accept service on his behalf do not alone show that service pursuant to the enumerated means set forth under New York law would be impracticable. See Avail 1] LLC v. Kalsi, 2023 WL 7298214, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2023) (Plaintiff did not show impracticability where Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted personal service but failed to allege that it could not effect service by the other methods of service under C.P.L.R. 308.); cf Bozza v. Love, 2015 WL 4039849, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2015) (finding service impracticable where after diligent search neither counsel nor a professional process server could locate a current address for defendant). Plaintiff is self-represented. The Court attaches to this order the guide that the Court makes available to self-represented litigants regarding how to effect service. This order is without prejudice to a renewed motion for alternative service based upon new facts. The alternative relief requested by Plaintiff of an order “confirming” service or directing the Clerk to add Marmur and Lewis to ECF is denied for absence of legal authority. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 14. SO ORDERED. weit tna, Dated: February 12, 2026 : TT New York, New York LEWIS J. LIMAN United States District Judge

‘Sree United States District Court Avail Southern District of New York □□□

This guide is intended to be a summary of basic procedures for serving the summons and complaint. The statements in this guide do not constitute legal advice and may not be cited as legal authority. This guide does not take the place of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Civil Rules, or the individual rules of practice and orders of the judges of this court. Parties using this guide remain responsible for complying with all applicable rules of procedure.

Service of the Summons What is a summons? e Asummons is a document notifying a defendant that she is required to participate in a court proceeding. What is service? e “Service” is the type of process a plaintiff utilizes to notify the defendant that she has been named in a complaint and that she is required to appear in court. A case cannot proceed until service is complete.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kelly v. Lewis
220 A.D.2d 485 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ari Teman v. Nathaniel Z. Marmur, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ari-teman-v-nathaniel-z-marmur-et-al-nysd-2026.