If you love soaps, you are going to want to read the Appellate Term's decision in Bakht v. Akhtar .
In that holdover case, Shirin Akhtar was being evicted by her in-laws. Although she was only a tenant-at-will (who had never had a lease in her name nor paid rent), Shirin refused to vacate when asked to do so, and, when litigation ensued, she challenged the court's jurisdiction over her person by objecting to the service of the pleadings.
Apparently, the process server believed he had resorted to substituted service by leaving copies of the Notice of Petition and Petition with Afruz Bahkt, Shirin's father-in-law and a co-respondent.
It appears the process server was unaware that Afruz and Shirin weren't getting along and that they were "hostile" co-tenants. (Afruz wanted Shirin out so that his son could return to the home.)
When a Civil Court Judge ordered Shirin's eviction, the Appellate Term, 2nd and 11th Judicial Districts, reversed that outcome on appeal and dismissed the holdover case.
While it's usually permissible to serve someone who resides or is employed at the premises sought to be recovered, the AT2 would not uphold the attempt in this instance due to the estranged nature of the group's relationship. Here's how the appellate court phrased it:
A conflict of interest may be found where, as here, the recipient of service and the intended respondent are related, but their interests in the proceeding are opposed ... whether this conflict is known to the process server or not .... Despite the fact that Afruz Bakht was a co-respondent in the present proceeding, all of the Bakhts, according to appellant, including the co-respondents, wanted her out of the house so that her estranged husband, Mohammad J. Bakht, could return and live there. Their interests were thus aligned against hers. It must be noted in this regard that none of the tenants, other than appellant, offered any testimony in the proceeding or even appeared in it.
Under the circumstances presented, there is a conflict of interest between the recipient of service and the appellant such that the recipient was not a person of suitable discretion for purposes of RPAPL 735 (1). Accordingly, substituted service of the petition and notice of petition on Afruz Bakht did not constitute good service upon appellant.
A lone dissenter, Hon. Michelle Weston Patterson, wasn't persuaded by Shirin's arguments and would have affirmed the lower court's determination. Justice Patterson did not believe the trial evidence established the existence of an "acrimonious" relationship with Afruz and thus would have upheld the service effort since the parties lived at the same address, their interests were sufficiently aligned, and Shirin admitted receiving copies of the pleadings by regular and certified mail.
What a relative mess!
To download a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: Bakht v. Akhtar