Process Service by Acknowledgement (CPLR 312-a) In New York

Process Service by Acknowledgement in New York

Process Service by Acknowledgement (CPLR 312-a) offers an alternative to traditional personal service in New York by allowing parties to serve legal documents by mail, provided the recipient signs and returns an acknowledgment of receipt. This method is designed to save time and costs, but it carries inherent risks if the defendant refuses to cooperate or fails to return the acknowledgment within the required 30 days. Because the validity of service directly affects whether a case moves forward or gets dismissed, plaintiffs and attorneys must carefully weigh the benefits and drawbacks of this procedure.

At Undisputed Legal, we understand that what seems like a straightforward shortcut can quickly become a trap for the unwary. Many litigants mistakenly assume that mailing papers automatically satisfies service requirements, only to face challenges in court when no acknowledgment is returned. This article explores when CPLR 312-a service works effectively and when it doesn’t, highlighting the rules, risks, and best practices to ensure compliance. By breaking down the nuances of mail service, we provide both clarity and strategic insights to help clients avoid costly missteps.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK PROCESS SERVICE BY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT(CPLR 312-A)

• CPLR 312-a provides a statutory alternative to in-person service (CPLR §§ 307, 308, 310, 311, or 312) by allowing a plaintiff (or any other person) to serve a summons and complaint (or summons with notice, or notice of petition and petition) by first-class mail, postage prepaid, accompanied by two copies of a ‘statement of service by mail and acknowledgement of receipt’ form, plus a prepaid return envelope addressed to the sender. 
• Service is not effected merely by mailing: it is complete only when the defendant (or their attorney or authorized employee) signs the acknowledgement of receipt form under penalty of perjury and returns it by mail or delivery within 30 days of receipt.
• Once the signed acknowledgement is returned, the time to respond to the complaint or petition begins (generally 20 days after the signed acknowledgement of receipt is mailed or delivered). 
• The signed acknowledgement serves as proof of service and is treated like a sworn affidavit. 
• If the defendant does not return the signed acknowledgement within 30 days, service under § 312-a is not complete, and the plaintiff must resort to another method of service permitted under the CPLR. The plaintiff may also recover the reasonable costs of service by alternate means as a disbursement against the defendant. 

PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS & MEMBERSHIPS

Frequently Asked Questions: Process Service by Acknowledgement

• When can I use CPLR 312-a service instead of in-person methods?
  You can use CPLR 312-a when you want to attempt service by mail rather than by hand delivery under CPLR §§ 307, 308, 310, 311, or 312. It’s a statutory option, but not a substitute for ensuring proper notice, you must comply exactly with the mailing-and-acknowledgement procedure.
• What exactly must be included in a 312-a mailing packet?
  You must mail:

1. A copy of the summons and complaint (or summons & notice, or notice of petition & petition),
2. Two copies of the statutory ‘statement of service by mail and acknowledgement of receipt’ form (in the format required by § 312-a(d)), and
3. A return envelope, postage prepaid and addressed to the sender. 

• When is service considered complete under 312-a?
  Service is complete when the defendant (or authorized person) signs the acknowledgement of receipt and mails or delivers it back to the sender within 30 days of receiving the mailing. 
• What if the defendant doesn’t return the acknowledgement form?
  Then service under § 312-a fails, and the plaintiff must try another legally valid method of service (for example, personal service under CPLR 308 or substituted service). The plaintiff may also recover the reasonable cost of alternate service as a disbursement against the defendant. 
• Is the acknowledgement form the same as an affidavit?
  Yes. The signed acknowledgement is sworn under penalty of perjury, and for CPLR purposes it is treated like a sworn affidavit, valid proof of service if returned properly. 
• What is the time to respond once service is complete under 312-a?
  Once the signed acknowledgment is returned, the defendant has 20 days to respond (file an answer or reply), just like other CPLR service rules. 
• What are the risks of relying on 312-a service?

1. The defendant may simply ignore or refuse to return the acknowledgement, so service might never be completed.
2. If the packet is missing one of the required elements (mailing, correct form, prepaid return envelope, or acknowledgment form in the right statutory format), a court may find service defective.
3. Because it places much of the burden on the defendant, 312-a service can backfire if the defendant does not cooperate or there is ambiguity about who is authorized to sign the acknowledgment.

• Can I serve a foreign defendant by 312-a?
  Possibly, but you need to check whether international service rules, such as the Hague Service Convention or foreign law, permit service by mail and acknowledgment. If not, relying solely on 312-a may not meet international notice or jurisdictional requirements.
• Can I send a waiver of service along with a 312-a packet?
  Yes. Though in state court practice, a ‘waiver of service’ under CPLR is less formal than in federal court, plaintiffs sometimes include a waiver request with a 312-a mailing, or otherwise ask a defendant to voluntarily waive formal service. But courts still require compliance with § 312-a if the plaintiff is using that statutory route.
• What should a plaintiff do to increase the chance that 312-a service will succeed?

1. Make sure the statutory form and return envelope are correctly included.
2. Keep good records of the mailing (date, address, contents).
3. Consider using 312-a as a backup or supplement to personal or substituted service.
4. Monitor the 30-day return window closely, and be ready to serve by alternate means quickly if the acknowledgement is not returned.
5. If there is any doubt whether a defendant will cooperate, or in a contested or adversarial situation, it may be safer to default to personal service or to have a backup service plan in place.

Article 3 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules addresses jurisdiction, service, appearance, and choice of court. CPLR Section 312-a in New York describes a specific way to serve someone: by mail with acknowledgment. While this can speed up a case,  312-a has quite a few procedural pitfalls, and plaintiffs who use it without fully knowing the rules might have their service thrown out.  Our Undisputed Legal private process servers are here to ensure that your papers are served without any hiccups, no matter what your chosen method of process service may be. 

Background: Process Service by Acknowledgement

CPLR 312-a (Personal Service by Mail) is a different way to serve someone than in-person service under CPLR 308 or other techniques. It lets a plaintiff start service by sending a copy of the summons and complaint (or summons with notice, or notice of petition and petition) via first-class mail with prepaid postage, together with [A.] two copies of a statement of service by mail and an acknowledgement of receipt (in the form required by law), and [B.] an envelope with a prepaid return address to the sender

When compared to personal service techniques for a summons, the petition, notice of petition, or both should be served by sending a letter to the designated address, initially with the complaint and summons, together with first class mail with pre-paid postage, or proceedings, notification of petition, and petition, accompanied by two statements of service in written form, together with a receipt confirmation submitted in the manner specified, together with an accompanying sender’s addressed envelope with pre-paid postage.

The defendant, or someone who is allowed to receive service (such the defendant’s lawyer or an authorised employee), must fill out the acknowledgement form, sign it under penalty of perjury, and return it back to the sender within 30 days after receiving the papers. Service is complete when the signed acknowledgement of receipt is sent or delivered to the sender. 

The time to respond begins when the sender gets the acknowledgement back. The signed acknowledgement is likewise evidence of service under CPLR, and it has the same legal significance as an affidavit since it is sworn and confirmed under penalty of perjury.

If the defendant doesn’t send back the acknowledgement within 30 days, service under 312-a is not finished. At such time, the plaintiff must serve the defendant in a different way that is allowed under the CPLR.

Acknowledging the service

That individual, an employee authorised by the defendant or counsel for the defendant, are obligated to fill out the receipt acknowledgement form. The party should then submit one duplicate by mail or delivery no later than thirty (30) days from the date
confirmation of delivery. The date of the signed acknowledgement marks the completion of the service when  sent back to the person who sent it via mail or delivery. The receipt, once acknowledged, will be considered evidence of service.

The defendant will have thirty days from the date of receipt to fill out and return the form. Within thirty days, the defendant will be liable for the costs of summons service, summons and notification, notification of petition, and petition in any other way that is allowed by law, and the price of the service as enforceable by law will be recorded as a verdict against the defendant.

If the defendant is being represented by an unincorporated entity,, partnership, organisation, or other legal body, they are required to specify this under their acknowledgement. If someone serves the defendant, or another individual and you have the authority to accept legal documents, they are required to specify your authority of power beneath your signature. Falsifying information on this or forging a signature is illegal in an acknowledgement. 

If the plaintiff or another party does not want to use the methods of personal service allowed by sections 307, 308, 310, 311 or 312 of the CPLR, they can send a copy of the summons and complaint, summons and notice, or notice of petition and petition by first class mail with postage prepaid. Additionally, they must include two copies of a statement of service by mail and an acknowledgement of receipt in the form specified, as well as a return envelope with postage prepaid addressed to the sender.

Requirements to fill out process service by acknowledgement

Remember to fill out all fields in the acknowledgement, including the dates. If an appropriately executed acknowledgement is not returned, the summons, notice of petition, or paper served with the summons or notice of petition must state that an earlier effort was made to effect service in accordance with this section. This will be done upon the subsequent service of process in another manner permitted by law.

In the event that the signed acknowledgement of receipt is not returned within thirty (30) days of receiving the documents sent, the court will assess the reasonable cost of alternative process serving as a disbursement to the party serving the process and will immediately direct judgement in that amount.

If the defendant is willing to forego formal delivery of the summons and complaint, plaintiff’s counsel may enquire with defence counsel at the outset of a proceeding. Unlike Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(b), the CPLR in New York does not use a uniform form for service waivers. However, in New York state court, parties may still seek and get exemptions of service.

The defendant is notified of the whole case via the formal and particular procedure-based serving of the summons and complaint (or summons with notice). Service of later complaint documents, such as motion papers, follows a less stringent standard and may be more readily waived or altered by the parties upon agreement (for instance, agreeing to serve papers via email) after all parties have appeared in the litigation.  attorney with a copy of the complaint. A waiver of service will be requested from the defendant in the letter.

Waiver of service

A ‘waiver of service’ under FRCP 4(b) in federal practice means that the defendant must be sent the complaint and all other necessary papers in addition to a request for a signed acknowledgement and waiver. It is also stated that a defendant who refuses to cooperate and waive service may be held financially responsible for the expenses of more formal service.

Although it is not technically a ‘waiver’ of service, New York state practice does give a standard form for recognising service by mail; however, this is only one kind of personal service. Therefore, it may not be necessary to request a waiver if the party can fulfil official service in this manner, according to state practice. 

It is necessary that the plaintiff follow the steps outlined in CPLR § 312-A when writing a letter requesting a waiver of service. If you want to prove to a court that the defendant was given enough information to make an informed decision about waiving service, the plaintiff will need need to know what is necessary for personal service by mail. 

In addition to requesting the waiver, a letter asking for service of process should have a signature line where the defendant may confirm their agreement to waive service. The plaintiff should then get a copy of this acknowledgement. The plaintiff may then use this as evidence that the defendant really waived their rights in court.

When one side has legal representation and the other does not, it is important to proceed with prudence and refer to the applicable professional standards. When conversing with a party whose representation you are unsure about, proceed with extreme care.  If you want to get personal jurisdiction over a defendant, you can’t just send them a waiver request in the mail. Just as in CPLR § 312-A, the completion of service (or waiver in this instance) is contingent upon the receipt of an acknowledgement

Whether it’s a general waiver of service or a more specific one addressing issues like personal jurisdiction or the statute of limitations, be sure to specify what exactly is being waived in any agreement or returned waiver of service acknowledgement. The scope of the waiver may be better understood by having counsel go over the language carefully. It could be required to negotiate.

Refusing Claims of Waiver

An affidavit containing specific facts should be included to every waiver of service letter in the event that the validity of a signature is called into doubt. The creation of a factual problem disputing the legitimacy of a signature requires more than just a simple accusation of forgery but will actively require proof since the accusation is so grave. 

Contractual waivers of service are permissible under New York law. It is recommended to include the details of the waiver in the proof of service, citing the applicable contract (while protecting any personal information). Also, make sure the court sees evidence of the defendant receiving a copy of the complaint and that the contracting parties are identical.

The sender must take further steps to ensure physical service if the acknowledgement of receipt cannot be sent or returned. No other means of service was used by the plaintiffs. since of this, the court should have agreed with the defendant and dismissed the case since the service was flawed. The complaint can be rejected if the defendant does not accept service under 312-a. A summary judgement motion and a response are both written and submitted. 

Exercise Caution Around CPLR 312-a Service

Failure to strictly follow the statute’s requirements or the defendant’s ignorance of service will make service ineffective. The service of documents beginning an action by mail is outlined in CPLR 312-a. There are significant drawbacks to using this service. As such, parties should refrain from adopting this form of service  if the relevant statute of limitations is about to expire. The defendant has complete control over the service’s efficacy and may choose to disregard it if it’s not successful.

‘By first class mail, postage prepaid’ is the method of service specified in CPLR 312-(a) is required. In Carney v. Metropolitan Transp., the plaintiff failed to provide the defendants with the necessary statement of service by mail or an acknowledgement of receipt. The Appellate Division pointed out that ‘[m]ailing the summons and complaint via first-class mail, standing alone, is insufficient to establish service because CPLR 312-a(b) specifies that’service is complete only if [the] defendant returns a signed acknowledgement of receipt.’ 

Keep in mind that a defendant might still choose to disregard service by not sending the acknowledgement, even if the plaintiff follows all of the requirements. Since service has not yet been completed, the plaintiff has not effectuated service at that moment. The sole consequence that the defendant may be subjected to is that  the reasonable expense of serving process by an alternative method shall be taxed by the court on notice, and the court shall direct immediate judgement in that amount.’. 

Hague Service Convention and CPLR 312

In the state of New York C.P.L.R. §312-a, permits ‘Personal Service by Mail,’ whereby a party serves the complaint and summons plus two copies of a statement of service by mail, a ‘acknowledgement of receipt’ form (which is prohibited by legislation), and a postpaid return envelope. The recipient’s participation is necessary for this service option; they must sign an acknowledgement form and return it in the prepaid envelope. Without a response, the plaintiff will have to use more traditional methods of service, which the defendant may be held financially responsible for due to a language in the acknowledgement that states the defendant may be assessed the ‘reasonable expense’ of the alternative method of service.

As an example, this mode of service, C.P.L.R. §312-a, might be used by a plaintiff from New York suing a resident of Canada, as the latter does not raise any objections to process served by mail. While the Hague Service Convention’s current Status Table lists all the nations that have approved different parts of the Hague Service Convention, it very much becomes dependent on the defendant as well as the laws of the nation for service of process to be acceptable in a different country. 

Once again, the need of the Convention to translate the materials being provided into the recipient’s native language is not addressed in any of the preceding descriptions. Something like that would be considered one of the ‘other remaining issues’ while on remand. Therefore, even if the message reached the right defendant who knew English, service without the proper translation by mail may be a strong reason to argue against proper service.

Major issues with CPLR 312-a 

CPLR 312-a places a large amount of the responsibility on the defendant to admit receipt (instead of making the plaintiff provide personal service),  But that change implies that the service could not be finished until the defendant sends back the acknowledgement, and if that doesn’t happen, the plaintiff has to serve again in a different way.

There are a few instances that show why 312-a might fail and what courts look for when deciding whether service under 312-a was successful. If the defendant does not sign a receipt for the service, they can often not fall under have personal jurisdiction, especially if the plaintiff never had a written acknowledgement and was never served again by another manner. The defendant’s statute of limitations defence can also stop the claim.  CPLR 312-a service can only be  valid if the plaintiff includes the right forms, the defendant returns the acknowledgement, and the plaintiff follows up if the acknowledgement is not returned.  Without such processes, courts will determine that service was never completed and that the plaintiff’s case was improperly initiated.

CPLR 312-a shifts the duty of service to the defendant since the defendant has to return the acknowledgement. However, this does not mean that the plaintiff is no longer responsible.  The law sets up a conditional service system: service by mail is only acceptable if the defendant sends back the signed acknowledgement.  This implies that the plaintiff is still responsible for keeping an eye on whether the acknowledgement is received and for serving the defendant again if it isn’t.

The plaintiff can’t use the defendant’s appearance or response to fix a problem with 312-a service.   So, the plaintiff can’t only depend on the mailing or what the defendant did next.  Instead, the law puts the onus on the plaintiff to keep an eye on the 30-day acknowledgement period and to step in with other service if needed.

Risk of ‘no acknowledgement,’ particularly in controversial or evasive situations.

 If the defendant is likely to reject or refuse to return the acknowledgement, either on purpose or because they are being difficult, then the plaintiff is employing 312-a at their own risk.  In certain situations, the plaintiff should only employ 312-a as a backup to personal service or keep a careful eye on the acknowledgement period and be ready to re-serve right away.  

 If the plaintiff doesn’t include the right acknowledgment/statement papers and return envelope, service under 312-a is bad from the start.  Just sending the summons and complaint by mail is not enough to meet CPLR 312-a’s criteria.  The plaintiff must include the statutory paperwork in the right format, otherwise the service may not be lawful.  If the plaintiff uses a different or custom form that is very different from the official form, or if they neglect to include the return envelope, the service may be defective.

 There may be questions about whether the acknowledgement is valid if it is signed by someone who is not authorised, does not show the relationship of the signer (for example, a third party, attorney, or employee signing on behalf of a defendant entity without showing capacity), or does not affirm under penalty of perjury.  The plaintiff should keep an eye on the acknowledgment’s completeness, such as whether the signer correctly stated their capacity in regard to the defendant and swore to the statement under penalty of perjury.

If the plaintiff sends the 312-a package to the defendant’s lawyer and that lawyer signs and returns the acknowledgement without proof that they were allowed to accept service on behalf of the defendant, the courts may say that the service was not valid.  CPLR 312-a does not automatically make service on an attorney legitimate unless the attorney is duly authorised.  

 To lower the danger and raise the possibilities that process service by acknowledgement will work, plaintiffs should include the right statutory acknowledgement papers and a prepaid return envelope with the package you send, in the manner that CPLR 312-a(d) says is necessary.  Check that the acknowledgement is easy to sign and send back.

 Keep documentation of sending, including copies of what was sent, dates, addresses, and receipts for first-class mail, so that the plaintiff may show that the papers were delivered correctly. Our Undisputed Legal private process servers can make sure that your papers are served carefully. 

Trusted Legal References for New York Process Service

Undisputed Legal Inc. – New York Process Service
Provides licensed process servers across New York City and the entire state, ensuring compliance with CPLR requirements and court-approved service methods.
Phone Number: 212-203-8001

New York State Unified Court System – Civil Practice Law & Rules (CPLR)
Sets forth New York’s official rules for service of process, including personal, substituted, and nail-and-mail service procedures.
Phone Number: 800-268-7869

New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection – Process Server Licensing
Regulates and licenses process servers in New York City, ensuring compliance with consumer protection laws and ethical service practices.
Phone Number: 212-639-9675

New York State Bar Association – Civil Litigation Resources
Provides resources and legal guidance for attorneys and litigants on civil practice, including service of process requirements in New York.
Phone Number: 518-463-3200

U.S. District Court – Southern District of New York: Service of Process
Outlines federal requirements for serving legal documents in New York under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Phone Number: 212-805-0136

Additional Resources

Best Practices for Process Service by Acknowledgement (CPLR 312-a)

Using Process Service by Acknowledgement (CPLR 312-a) requires strict adherence to statutory rules and careful strategy. Plaintiffs should always send the summons, complaint, and acknowledgment form by first-class mail with postage prepaid. Tracking and documentation are essential — proof that the documents were mailed can protect against disputes later. Attorneys should always set a calendar reminder for the 30-day deadline, and if no acknowledgment is returned, promptly arrange for personal service. Never rely solely on CPLR 312-a when dealing with evasive defendants or high-stakes matters where delay could prejudice the case.

Key Best Practices:

• Mail all required documents with correct forms and prepaid return envelope.
• Keep proof of mailing and maintain organized service records.
• Calendar the 30-day deadline to monitor acknowledgment returns.
• Avoid CPLR 312-a for evasive defendants or critical cases.
• Always have a backup plan for personal service if mail service fails.

Case Studies: When CPLR 312-a Works — And When It Doesn’t

Case Study 1: Smooth Acknowledgment Return
In a contract dispute in Manhattan, the defendant cooperated by signing and returning the acknowledgment form within 10 days. Service was valid, costs were reduced, and the case proceeded without delay.

Case Study 2: Defendant Refuses to Sign
In a Queens landlord-tenant matter, the defendant received the documents but refused to sign the acknowledgment form. Undisputed Legal quickly arranged personal service before the statute of limitations expired, preserving the client’s claim.

Case Study 3: Missed Deadline Consequence
In a negligence action, a plaintiff relied on CPLR 312-a without monitoring the 30-day deadline. The acknowledgment was never returned, and because personal service was not arranged in time, the case was dismissed. This highlights why professional oversight is critical.

Why Choose Undisputed Legal?

At Undisputed Legal, we know that Process Service by Acknowledgement (CPLR 312-a) can be both efficient and risky. With years of experience handling service under New York’s CPLR, our team ensures that clients comply with procedural rules while protecting their cases from costly dismissals. We track deadlines, document every step, and step in with professional personal service if acknowledgments are not returned. Clients trust us for our legal precision, practical problem-solving, and ability to adapt quickly when challenges arise.

ORDER PROCESS SERVICE TODAY

Don’t let improper service jeopardize your case. Whether you’re considering Process Service by Acknowledgement (CPLR 312-a) or need fast, reliable personal service, Undisputed Legal is here to help.

Call us today at (800) 774-6922 or order professional process service now.

WHAT OUR CLIENTS ARE SAYING

FOR ASSISTANCE SERVING LEGAL PAPERS

Click the “Place Order” button at the top of this page or call us at (800) 774-6922 to begin. Our team of experienced process servers is ready to assist you with reliable and efficient service of your documents, ensuring compliance with all legal requirements. We offer both comprehensive support and à la carte services tailored to your specific needs:

• Prompt and professional service of process
• Accurate completion of affidavits of service
• Rush service for time-sensitive matters
• Skip tracing for hard-to-locate parties
• Detailed reporting on service attempts

Don’t risk case delays or dismissals due to improper service. Let Undisputed Legal’s skilled team handle the important task of serving legal papers for you. Our diligent, professional service helps attorneys, pro se litigants, and parents ensure their papers are served correctly and on time.

Take the first step towards ensuring proper service in your case – click “Place Order” or call (800) 774-6922 now. Let Undisputed Legal be your trusted partner in navigating the critical process of serving your documents.

“Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, intelligent direction, and skillful execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives” – Foster, William A

Sources

¹ Smart Code and 22 NYCRR 1200.33.

² In the case of Co., 2010 NY Slip Op 52229(U) (App. Term, 2nd 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2010).
Gateway Medical, P.C. opposing Progressive Ins. No. 50336(U) (App. Term, 2nd, 11th & 13th Jud. Dists. 2011), Co., 2011 New York Slip Op.

Since the defendant failed to sign and return an acknowledgement of service, the purported service of the summons and complaint under CPLR 312-a was never completed, giving rise to the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction in this provider’s action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff disagreed with the motion and argued that the defendant should either be forced to sign the acknowledgement or allowed to serve the summons and complaint in another way. The defendant’s application was dismissed by the Civil Court, leading to this appeal.

³ Dominguez v Stimpson Mfg. Corp., 207 AD2d 375 [1994]

⁴ Gateway Medical, P.C. opposing Progressive Ins. Term 2d Dept. 2011 decision in the case of Co., 2011 NY Slip Op 50336(U)

‘Defendant never signed and returned an acknowledgement of receipt to plaintiff, as shown in the record. ‘The sender must effect personal service in another manner if the acknowledgement of receipt is not mailed or returned to them’ (Dominguez v Stimpson Mfg. Corp., 207 AD2d 375 [1994]; see also Patterson v Balaquiot, 188 AD2d 275 [1992]).’ (cited in the case)

⁵ N.Y.: Author, 2023. In case slip #05679 (1st Dept. Nov. 14, 2023)

‘Defendants submitted affidavits showing that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MABSTOA were never served with the summons and complaint. Once defendants challenged service, plaintiff had the burden of demonstrating satisfaction of statutory and due process prerequisites (see Stewart v Volkswagen of Am., 81 NY2d 203, 207 [1993]).’

Consequently, ‘service ‘[w]as never completed and the action was never properly commenced’ (citations omitted)’; and ‘[t]he time for NYCTA and MTA Bus Company to file an answer or move to dismiss never started running because plaintiff did not include an acknowledgement of receipt with the summons and complaint.’ I

⁶ e-Vision.nl, The Netherlands. (n.d.-a). HCCH | #14 – Status table. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=17

⁷ Taft v. Moreau (D. Vt. 1997), Williams v. LeBrun (2010)

⁸ Hague Service Convention, Art. 5 (1965) (Article 5 mandates translation prior to central authority service; however, it seems that most courts have determined that the lack of a translation requirement in Art. 10 of the Convention cancels out the necessity for such a translation when process is served via mail).

DIRECTIONS TO OUR NEW YORK CITY HEADQUARTERS

For access to our New York City corporate headquarters at One World Trade Center, 85th Floor, please click the embedded map and call ahead to be added to building security. Be sure to bring all necessary documents and payment to expedite your visit. Undisputed Legal Inc. maintains offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. We provide legal support services in all 50 states and over 120 countries worldwide.