Coney v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, 1:25-cv-05011

Sescily Renee Coney, the plaintiff, proceeded pro se against multiple individual defendants and New York Presbyterian Hospital (NYP).
Plaintiff moved to permit substituted and alternative service by email for ten defendants after difficulty serving them by traditional means.
NYP waived service, so the motion as to NYP was denied as moot; remaining defendants are individuals associated with the case.
Plaintiff relied on Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3), concerning service in foreign countries, and asserted courts allow similar relief domestically when traditional methods fail but provided no supporting legal authority.
Plaintiff claimed to attempt service at workplaces and homes but mostly attempted service once and reported individuals were "unavailable."
The court assessed whether the steps taken satisfied New York's statutory requirements for demonstrating that traditional service was impracticable before allowing alternative means like email.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May alternative service by email be allowed for domestic defendants?	Coney argued alternative service is permissible when traditional methods are ineffective, even within the U.S.	Did not appear or respond.	No; Rule 4(e) and NY law govern, and foreign service rules are inapplicable.
Has plaintiff established impracticability of traditional service?	Coney cited visits to workplaces, database searches, and one attempt at residences, claiming "unavailability" at addresses.	Did not appear or respond.	No; plaintiff's efforts did not show required impracticability for alternatives.
Can the court authorize email service under N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 308(5)?	Coney requested email service due to difficulties with other options.	Did not appear or respond.	No; insufficient showing of impracticability to use §308(5) for alternative means.
Standard for showing alternative service is warranted	Coney argued efforts sufficed, referencing similar principles as for foreign service.	Did not appear or respond.	No; plaintiff must detail specific, diligent efforts for each method under NY law.

David v. Total Identity Corp., 857 N.Y.S.2d 380 (4th Dep’t 2008) (court cannot authorize alternative service by email absent showing traditional methods are impracticable).
Fortunato v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., 2012 WL 2086950 (S.D.N.Y. June 7, 2012) (actual prior attempts at service are not always required, but mere unavailability is insufficient).