Here, the minimal time that was spent, no more than two minutes, and that it was the first attempt to serve the papers indicate that this was a "rush job." The assigned court date was 10 days out, on January 22, 2024, and service had to be at minimum 10 days before the proceeding was scheduled to be heard. (RPAPL 733.) January 12, 2024, was the absolute last day to serve the papers. The option of affixing the papers to the door and then mailing thereafter would not have complied with the statutory time frame required for proper service. Instead of going back in the evening to see if an adult was at the subject premises, the papers were given to a 13 year old, on the first attempt and at 3:38 p.m. when most parents or adults are at work.
The case cited by the process server, Choi Yim Chi v Miller (63 Misc 3d 354 [Sup Ct, Queens County 2019]), does not stand for the proposition that a 13 year old is a person of suitable age and discretion.
"The court stresses that it has a great deal of difficulty finding that a 13 year old is a person of suitable age and discretion upon whom a summons may be served. (See CPLR 308 [2]; see also Wells Fargo Bank Minn. v Roman, 10 Misc 3d 1075[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 50082[U] [Sup Ct, Richmond County 2006].) In that respect, the court notes that the Court of Appeals has apparently never addressed the issue of service upon a young teenager. When confronted with a case in which service of process was disputed, the Court of Appeals noted that 'no question has been raised concerning the fact that{**85 Misc 3d at 475} the youngsters, one 14 and the other 15, were of "suitable age and discretion" ' " (63 Misc 3d at 358).