Justice Lucy Billings

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's action for failure to serve them as required by applicable law before expiration of the extended time for service. Plaintiff argued that it served defendant Jung in New York, and that the extension was not limited to serving defendants in the Republic of Korea; in the event the court found service was limited to Korea, plaintiff cross-moved to further extend time to serve defendant Choi, Jong's husband, or to serve him by alternative means. The court first ruled that its grant of extended time for service did not limit plaintiff to serving defendants in Korea, but declined to further extend time, finding plaintiff's previous efforts at service dilatory and not reasonably calculated to effect service. However, the court authorized alternative service plaintiff had made on defendants in New York. The court rejected defendants' argument that the Hague Convention prohibited alternative service. The court ruled that the Hague Convention was not mandatory, as New York law did not require transmittal of documents abroad; instead, the court found that service upon an agent – in this case, defendants' attorney – was authorized by state law, and provided defendants with actual notice.