Opinion
June 2, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Oppido, J.).
Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The credible evidence adduced at the traverse hearing established that the "nailing" of process was to the front door of a house in which the respondent had a separate, distinct and clearly marked office entrance at the side of the building. Such did not, therefore, comply with CPLR 308 (4) which requires affixation to the door of the "actual place of business". Further, the respondent's testimony established that he had never resided in the building so that service cannot be sustained on the basis of it being his actual "dwelling place or usual place of abode" (see, Feinstein v. Bergner, 48 N.Y.2d 234, 239; Burkhardt v. Cuccuzza, 81 A.D.2d 821). We have examined the plaintiffs' other contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.