Courts around the country are split as to whether Article 10(a) permits Service of Process by mail in international civil actions, the New York courts are no exception.
Recently the New York Law Journal produced a white paper that provided expert analysis of the issues surrounding the differing points of view of various courts in New York.
I am probably over simplifying the issue but it appears to me that part of the conflict has to do with what is the definition of "Service of Process" on the Hague Convention. Is it correspondence and other informational material or is it more formal documents like a summons and complaint? Some courts have held that it is both while others have not.
It seems to me that if the initiator of the Service of Process and the recipient of the Service of Process are consenting to service via postal, electronic or other more convenient and cost effective channels then who cares.
I encourage you to learn more by visiting the article at the link provided above.
Jeff Karotkin
I agree with the First Department. I think the other departments are just reading between the lines and perverting the rule to accommodate easy and cheap process of service. Although, if it's this easy, based on precedence, then maybe I'll start advertising and capitalizing on it.
ReplyDelete