"RPAPL section 735 permits nail and mail service where admittance to the
premises cannot be obtained 'upon reasonable application.' The process server's efforts are not to
be judged by the 'due diligence' standard for service of process in ordinary actions imposed by
CPLR 308(4). 'A lower grade of effort' is contemplated in exacting 'reasonable application' to the
extent that the process server 'may ring once (or twice if so moved) and if such mild, lawful
efforts come to naught, he may proceed with posting and mailing' (Coulston v. JKL Founding
Corp., N.Y.L.J., March 20, 1974, p. 17, col. 7, as quoted in Hospitality Enterprises Inc. v.
Fuego Restaurant Corp., N.Y.L.J., June 5, 1980, p. 11, col. 4 [AT
1]).
The primary purpose of summary proceedings is to enable the
landlord to regain possession quickly and inexpensively. While more is required than a mere
recital authorizing nail and mail service, where the testimony of the process server established
that he was on the premises at an hour when he could reasonably expect the tenant to be at home,
and rang the bell, the requirements of section 735 have been met (cf. Palumbo v. Est. of
Clark, 94 Misc 2d 1, 403 N.Y.S.2d 874; see also Velazquez v. Thompson, 2nd Cir.,
451 F.2d 202).
The court's decision invalidated the service on the narrow ground that the process server had
not used the building intercom system before proceeding to the tenant's apartment. Requiring this
specific act to spell out reasonable application exceeds the statutory standards of service under
RPAPL section 735, as they have been construed by the court. The court below, in sustaining the
traverse, imposed an essentially subjective standard of 'reasonable application' which finds no
support in RPAPL section 735."