Process Service on Unknown Defendants in New York

Serving legal papers on unknown defendants, often referred to as “John Doe” parties, presents unique procedural challenges under New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR). These cases arise when a plaintiff cannot identify the exact individual or entity at the time of filing—commonly seen in personal injury, property damage, foreclosure, or commercial disputes. The court still requires that these unnamed parties receive legally sufficient notice, ensuring their right to due process is protected. Understanding how to properly execute Process Service on Unknown Defendants in New York is critical to avoid dismissals, delays, or jurisdictional disputes later in litigation.

At Undisputed Legal, our process servers are highly experienced in navigating these complex service scenarios. We understand that serving John Doe defendants requires precision, compliance with CPLR §308 and §315, and documentation that satisfies judicial scrutiny. Our team is trained to employ alternate and substituted service methods authorized by New York courts, ensuring that every action we take stands up in court. Whether you’re dealing with an unidentified tenant, an evasive party, or a corporate entity operating under an alias, Undisputed Legal provides the expert guidance and field experience needed to ensure your documents are served correctly and on time.

In New York, people often file lawsuits against people they don’t know or can’t name. These people are usually called “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” defendants. 

• CPLR §1024 allows these placeholders as long as the complaint gives enough details to identify the intended defendant. This means that the plaintiff can move forward even if they don’t know the defendant’s name or identity.
• Before the statute of limitations runs out, plaintiffs must show that they did everything they could to find the unknown parties. According to CPLR §306-b, they must also finish serving the papers within 120 days of starting the case. If they don’t, courts may throw out the claim unless they can show “good cause” or “interest of justice.”

In some situations, like foreclosures, personal injury claims, or digital fraud cases, plaintiffs have a harder time finding defendants. 

• CPLR §308(5) says that courts can now use alternative or digital service methods when regular service isn’t possible. This flexibility makes it easier to find defendants who use fake names or don’t have a real address.
• When a plaintiff learns the defendant’s real name, they must quickly change the complaint under CPLR §3025 and, if necessary, use the relation-back doctrine (CPLR §203[f]) to keep the claim from being late.
• Courts look at whether the new defendant knew or should have known that they were the target of the original claim.

Frequently Asked Questions About Process Service on Unknown Defendants in New York

1. What does it mean to be a “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” defendant? These names are placeholders and are used in complaints when the plaintiff doesn’t know the defendant’s name or full identity yet. It lets the lawsuit go ahead while the investigation is still going on.
2. Can you sue a “John Doe” in New York? Yes. CPLR §1024 says that plaintiffs can sue an unknown person as “John Doe” as long as they give enough information to reasonably identify the person they want to sue by description or context.
3. When does service have to be done on a John Doe defendant? As per CPLR §306-b, service must be completed within 120 days of filing the action, unless the court grants an extension for good cause or in the interest of justice.
4. What is the best way to find out the real name of a John Doe defendant? Through careful investigation, such as looking through public records, making discovery requests, filing FOIL applications, checking police or property records, and getting in touch with possible witnesses or co-defendants. The effort must be real and recorded.
5. Can the complaint be changed after you find out the defendant’s real name? Yes. The plaintiff must change the complaint under CPLR §3025 once they know who they are. They can also ask that the change be linked to the original filing date under CPLR §203(f) to avoid problems with the statute of limitations.
6. What will happen if I don’t find or serve the defendant on time? If the 120-day period passes without service, the plaintiff must show good cause or that justice requires an extension in order for the claim against that defendant to be dropped.
7. How does substituted or alternative service work for defendants whose names are not known?
   If personal service isn’t possible, the plaintiff can ask the court for permission under CPLR §308(5) to use other methods like email, publication, or social media, as long as they are likely to reach the defendant.
8. Does being in forma pauperis change how service is done? Yes. The U.S. Marshals Service serves the summons and complaint in IFP cases. The plaintiff doesn’t personally handle service, but they do have to keep an eye on it and ask for more time if they need it.
9. Is it possible to use digital or electronic service in John Doe cases? Often. When the plaintiff can show that traditional service isn’t possible and that the digital account belongs to the defendant, courts have allowed service through electronic means

A plaintiff in many New York State civil cases starts a lawsuit without knowing who the defendants are. These ‘John Doe’ or ‘Jane Doe’ defendants are hard to deal with because parties are often at a loss about when to serve them, how to change the name to identify them, what kind of service or replacement or alternative service they need, and what time constraints apply. 

Both plaintiffs and defendants need to know this area well. Plaintiffs want to keep their claims alive while finding out who the unknown parties are. Defendants want to make sure that service is genuine and that time restrictions aren’t improperly triggered. The best way to ensure this is by utilising a private process service agency like Undisputed Legal who can help you with service of process.

The New York Civil Practice Law & Rules include a number of important laws that deal with unknown defendants, ‘John Doe’ pleadings, substituted names, and when service or identification must take place.  CPLR Section 1024 allows a party who doesn’t know the full name or identify of someone who may be constituted a party to sue that person as an unknown party by giving as much information about them as they do know. 

The main objective of CPLR 1024 ‘is to allow a known cause of action to be brought against an individual whose name only is unknown.‘ However, for a summons served in a ‘John Doe’ form to be considered jurisdictionally sufficient, the actual defendants must be adequately described and would have known, from the description in the complaint, that they were the intended defendant. There is a great deal riding on whether or not a summons is jurisdictionally adequate. If it is, the plaintiff will be granted the 60-day extension. 

It is also necessary to show  that the party conducted a diligent inquiry into the actual identities of the intended defendants before the expiration of the statutory period  if the plaintiff wants to change the defendant in an action from ‘John Doe’ to a real person after the statute of limitations has passed. 

When an originally-named defendant and an unknown ‘Jane Doe’ or ‘John Doe’ party are united in interest, i.e. employer and employee, the later-identified party may, in some instances, be added to the suit after the statute of limitations has expired.

CPLR Section 306-b: 120-Day Service Requirement

The plaintiff must serve the summons and complaint on all defendants within 120 days after starting the action. If service isn’t done before then, the courts may throw out the lawsuit against the unserved defendants unless the plaintiff demonstrates good reason or that service should be granted in the interest of justice. For ‘John Doe’ defendants, even if the plaintiff doesn’t know the identity right away, they have to make a lot of effort to find and serve the defendant before the 120-day limit, or else their unknown defendant claim might be thrown out. 

Defendants’ identities are not always known when a plaintiff initiates a lawsuit. For example, in mortgage foreclosure proceedings, ‘John Does’  or ‘Jane Does’ are listed as defendants due to the fact that there could be unidentified persons or organisations that own, among other things, a leasing agreement pertaining to the subject property or have another interest in it. It is common practice for a process server to contact the occupants of the mortgaged property and serve them with legal documents. After that, the lender will eventually replace the actual debtor with the ‘John Doe’ denomination. 

Process served in case of forma pauperis

The summons is served by the United States Marshals Service in an in forma pauperis case. A plaintiff are exempt from serving the summons and complaint if they are proceeding in forma pauperis (‘IFP’), meaning they applied to the court to waive the filing fee and it was approved. This procedure will be handled by the U.S. Marshals Service. No action is required on their part; the Court’s Order of Service will commence it. This procedure might take a long time. The USMS has 90 days to try and finish the service, but it could take more time than that. It is important to remember that the plaintiff’s obligation to obtain an extension beyond 90 days from the New York state court in question.

It is necessary to serve a summons and complaint on each defendant. A fresh summons will be issued by the Clerk of Court upon the assigned judge’s order of service, in the event that an amended pleading includes a new defendant. If a service order has not yet been issued, the plaintiff is required to formally request that the judge who has been assigned to this case do so in writing. A summons is considered ‘expired’ after 90 days from the date shown on it. If a defendant has not been served yet, the plaintiff must request an updated summons and an extension of time for service from the assigned judge.

It is important to notify the court via the Pro Se Intake Unit if the USMS is unable to serve a defendant within 90 days. The letter should be sent to the assigned judge and seek an extension of time to serve the defendant. It is at the discretion of the assigned judge to determine a new deadline for serving the defendants and, if requested for ‘good cause,’ to grant an extension of time. The court may be asked to instruct the defendant’s attorney to name the defendant, who is often called a ‘John Doe’ or ‘Jane Doe’ defendant. To proceed with this request, it is necessary to provide the representative with as much personal information on the Doe defendant as possible. The United States Marshals Service (USMS) will serve the defendants after the court issues an Order of Service designating the new defendants as John or Jane Does.

If the names of the unnamed defendants become revealed, the lawsuit may be changed to include their true names. The change must comply with CPLR § 3025 (which allows for quiet amendments) and typically must also comply with relation-back provisions under CPLR (or case law). The claims against the new defendant must go back to the date of the first pleading so that the timing (statute of limitations, etc.) stays the same. The courts look at whether the new name is related to the same activity, event, or transaction, and if the defendant knew about it so that injustice or bias is avoided.

Methods of service upon John and Jane Doe Defendants

A court order may provide for substitute service under CPLR § 308(5) if physical service under CPLR § 308(1), (2), or (4) is not possible. For unknown parties, alternative service methods may include publishing, service by email, social media or websites, or any inventive digital location service, as long as due diligence steps are exhibited and the approach is ‘reasonably calculated’ to tell the unknown defendant of the claim. When the names of the defendants are unknown and can’t be reached via normal means, courts have started to enable more digital or hybrid alternative services in cases involving John Doe defendants.

Substitute service in John Doe cases

If a person’s address is unknown, they may be served by publication. If the defendant’s address is unknown, the plaintiff or plaintiff’s counsel may serve the defendant by publication by filing an affidavit with the court. The clerk of courts is obligated to publish a notice in a general circulation newspaper in the county where the complaint is filed after the affidavit has been submitted. 

Publication requirements include the court name and address, case number, first party names on both sides, and, if available, the last known address and name of any defendant whose domicile is unknown. 

The plaintiff can post a copy of the summons to the defendant’s ‘last known residence’ or ‘actual place of business’ in the specified way required by CPLR 308(4), and they can also post a copy to the defendant’s ‘actual place of business, dwelling place or usual place of abode’ at the same time. If plaintiff believes that serving defendant in a certain way is ‘impracticable,’ they may seek the court’s approval to use any ‘such manner as the court’ to serve.

A motion may be filed by the plaintiff to ask the court to do this. The terms ‘motions for alternate service’ or ‘motions for substitute service’ might describe the same thing. Serving the defendant is ‘impracticable’ (not impossible), but the plaintiff must demonstrate the efforts made in that move. After then, the plaintiff may ask the court to let it serve the defendant in a way that isn’t outlined in CPLR 308. It is up to the discretion of the courts to choose the best form of serving and tailor it to each individual case.

Due Diligence requirements that plaintiffs have to cover

While making their decisions on these motions, some courts have made it mandatory for plaintiffs to serve the defendant’s attorney, insurance firm, or family member with the summons and complaint; some have even permitted service by email.

In every case, the specifics are unique. On the other hand, a plaintiff may want to think about filing a request under CPLR 308 if serving a defendant is becoming problematic, maybe because the defendant is trying to avoid service. 

Proper documentation of the plaintiff’s efforts must be included in any motion prepared under CPLR 308(5). Both the impracticability of serving the defendant and the fairness of the plaintiff’s suggested manner of serve will be shown via these endeavours. Substituted service is permitted under CPLR 308(5) only in cases when other means of service are impractical; the assessment of this should be done ex parte based on affidavits. Prior to using substituted service, it is necessary to try service at the defendant’s known out-of-state address in accordance with CPLR 302(b) and CPLR 313. Substituted service cannot be justified by a single failed effort at serve at each of the defendant’s known residences. 

Also, where the defendant’s out-of-state address is known, courts should not allow substituted service under CPLR 308(5) unless there is a strong indication that alternative means of service are impractical. It is crucial to try conventional means of service first before turning to alternative service that is mandated by a court.

Tips to serve Unknown Defendants

The New York Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff who named an unknown defendant ‘Jane Doe’ must prove that they tried hard enough to find out who the defendant was before or within the 120-day service period under  306-b. Usually, the plaintiff will aim to ascertain the identity of the unknown defendant via discovery requests, record investigations, and other means. It should be done within the requisite timeframe, so that the court does not deny relief on the grounds of ‘good cause’ or ‘interest of justice.’ 

Technology cases specify that  plaintiffs have been able to get court permission for alternate service through digital means (like web pages, NFTs, and digital postings) when the defendants use pseudonymous or unknown identities (like wallets or blockchain addresses) and there is no physical address or email address for them.  It should be known that due diligence could include employing discovery tools like FOIL requests and interrogatories, looking into public documents, getting in touch with co-defendants or witnesses, checking mailboxes, building management and so on. The efforts must be real and written down in affidavits before or during the 120-day service term.  Since this proof and due diligence can be overwhelming, a private process service agency like Undisputed Legal can be very helpful. 

 The complaint must have enough descriptive information to ‘fairly apprise’ the defendant and others that a person is being sued whose identity is unknown. The description can’t just be general or ambiguous; it has to be linked to facts, a transaction, an event, or a place so that the defendant would realise they are being sued for something that happened because of those facts.

CPLR Section 306-b says that service on Jane/John Doe defendants must be done within 120 days. If service (or substitute when the name is known) happens after 120 days, the plaintiff must establish either ‘good cause’ (specific grounds for the delay) or that service should be granted in the interest of justice.  

Changing the Complaint after Identifying an Unknown Defendant

When the plaintiff finds out the genuine name of an unknown defendant, they must change the complaint to use that name instead (per CPLR § 3025). For the claim to connect back to the original filing and stop the statute of limitations defence, the amended defendant must have known about the action in some way, or the same transaction or incident must be claimed. The adjustment must take place promptly (within the service duration or extensions). Courts look at whether the additional defendant was ‘joined’ early enough so that the defence isn’t hurt.

Also, courts often turn down other ways to serve papers not because the technique itself is bad, but because the plaintiff hasn’t shown that the method is likely to reach the defendant or that the defendant owned or used the digital media in issue. If you use email or social media, you need to prove that you have used it before and that it is still working or dependable. Statements that the defendant ‘presumably uses’ the account are typically not enough. It is necessary to ensure that your papers are served carefully, regardless of if the defendant is known to you. A private process service agency like Undisputed Legal is vital. 

PROFESSIONAL CREDENTIALS & MEMBERSHIPS

Best Practices for Serving Unknown Defendants

When dealing with process service on unknown defendants, accuracy, documentation, and judicial compliance are paramount. Below are industry-recognized best practices developed through our years of professional service experience:

1. Obtain Court Authorization for Alternate Service
In most cases involving unknown or evasive parties, the court must approve substituted or alternate methods of service. Undisputed Legal assists attorneys in preparing detailed affidavits supporting motions for substituted service under CPLR 308(5), demonstrating that diligent efforts were made to locate the defendant.

2. Conduct Comprehensive Diligence Efforts
Courts require proof of due diligence before granting leave for alternate service. Our investigative division conducts skip tracing, address verification, postal checks, and online public record searches to confirm all reasonable efforts to locate the defendant have been made.

3. Maintain Detailed Affidavits of Service
Each affidavit is meticulously drafted and reviewed to ensure compliance with New York’s service laws. We document the time, date, and circumstances of each attempt—providing clients with a defensible record for court filings.

4. Coordinate with Attorneys for Judicial Review
Our team collaborates directly with counsel to ensure service aligns with the judge’s order or stipulations, avoiding technical rejection. We maintain open communication throughout the process, ensuring your documents are properly served and accepted by the court.

5. Utilize Licensed and Trained Process Servers
Only licensed, bonded professionals should serve process in New York City. All Undisputed Legal servers meet state and city licensing requirements and adhere to ethical and procedural standards to protect your case integrity.

Undisputed Legal

Unknown Defendant Service Assessment (New York)

Find the right approach for serving John Doe or unidentified parties. Educational tool — not legal advice.

How it works: Answer a few questions. We’ll suggest the most appropriate service approach (e.g., diligence + motion for alternate service under CPLR 308(5), publication under CPLR 315), then invite you to order professional service so your case proceeds without delay.

Case Type Select a case type Landlord–Tenant / Real Property Personal Injury / Tort Commercial / Civil Litigation Debt / Collections Foreclosure / Title Other

This helps tailor the recommended service path.

What Do You Know About the Defendant? Select one No name, no confirmed address Partial name or alias Known address, unsure of legal name Known employer or place of business PO Box / forwarding address only

Courts weigh diligence and specificity when approving alternate service.

Prior Diligence Attempts Select one None yet Basic checks (Google, phone, mail) Skip trace / database searches Multiple field attempts at different times All of the above

Diligence is central to CPLR 308(5) motions for alternate service.

Court Order for Alternate Service Select one Already granted Not yet requested Filed / pending Not sure

Orders may direct affix & mail, email, or publication (CPLR 308(5) / 315).

Service Jurisdiction Select one New York City (5 Boroughs) Long Island (Nassau / Suffolk) Upstate New York Defendant believed out-of-state Defendant believed international

If outside NY, we can coordinate out-of-state/international service.

Get Recommendation Order Process Service Now

Suggested approach—

Next step—

Order Process Service Now

Undisputed Legal executes service, maintains full documentation, and provides a court-ready affidavit for service we perform.

This tool is informational and does not constitute legal advice. For court-accepted service on unknown defendants, use a licensed professional.

Trusted Legal References for Process Service

Undisputed Legal Inc. – Nationwide & International Process Service
Provides professional and court-compliant process service throughout all 50 U.S. states and more than 120 countries. Experts in domestic and international document delivery under the Hague Service Convention and Letters Rogatory procedures.
Phone Number: 212-203-8001

U.S. Courts – Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 4: Process)
Defines the official federal framework for the service of process in civil cases, detailing who may serve, acceptable delivery methods, and proof-of-service requirements.
Phone Number: 202-502-2600

U.S. Department of State – Judicial Assistance: Service of Process Abroad
Offers official U.S. guidance for serving judicial and extrajudicial documents internationally, including Hague Convention procedures and diplomatic channels for non-Hague jurisdictions.
Phone Number: 1-888-407-4747

Hague Conference on Private International Law – Service Convention (1965)
Provides the international treaty framework governing the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents across borders, ensuring consistency and cooperation among member nations.

Additional Resources

Why Choose Undisputed Legal

For over a decade, Undisputed Legal has been the trusted name in process service for unknown and evasive defendants across New York State. Our agency combines local experience, technological precision, and legal insight to ensure court-compliant results.

We specialize in complex service situations where standard delivery methods fail—cases involving unidentified property occupants, fraudulent names, or dissolved entities. Our team operates across all five boroughs, Long Island, and statewide, providing consistent results supported by real-time tracking and detailed reports.

Clients choose Undisputed Legal for our:

• Proven Record of Compliance: Every serve meets CPLR and local court requirements.
• Expert Knowledge of Substituted and Alternative Service: We understand judicial discretion and how to support it with factual documentation.
• Transparent Communication: Clients receive progress updates and affidavit copies immediately after service.
• Nationwide and International Reach: For cases extending beyond New York, we coordinate seamlessly with affiliates in all 50 states and over 120 countries.

Our reputation is built on precision, reliability, and legal credibility. When you trust Undisputed Legal, you’re working with a team that understands both the letter and spirit of New York process service law.

Case Studies: Process Service on Unknown Defendants

Case Study 1: Unidentified Tenant in a Property Dispute (Brooklyn)
A real estate firm sought to evict an unknown tenant occupying a multi-unit property under a false name. The client engaged Undisputed Legal to handle service on an unidentified “John Doe.” Our investigators confirmed occupancy, obtained photographic evidence, and filed a detailed affidavit supporting alternate service under CPLR 308(5). The judge approved the order, and service by affixing and mailing was completed within 48 hours—allowing the eviction case to proceed without delay.

Case Study 2: Unknown Driver in a Hit-and-Run (Queens)
In a personal injury case, the plaintiff’s attorney needed to serve an unidentified driver. Using DMV records and skip-trace databases, Undisputed Legal located the registered owner associated with the license plate captured by a traffic camera. We completed alternate service via mail and publication, resulting in valid service under CPLR 315. The case proceeded, and the client secured a favorable settlement.

Case Study 3: Business Defendant Operating Under an Alias (Manhattan)
A financial dispute involved a business entity that had changed its operating name and address without notifying the state. Our team verified the business’s registered agent through the Department of State, filed a motion for substituted service, and executed service via the authorized agent. The client’s motion to compel payment was granted due to proper service documentation prepared by Undisputed Legal.

These examples highlight how our expertise and diligence consistently deliver legally compliant, court-accepted results—even when the defendant’s identity or location is uncertain.

Conclusion

Serving John Doe or unknown defendants in New York requires more than just procedural knowledge—it demands a strategic and legally sound approach supported by documentation and expertise. Mistakes in service can lead to case dismissal or delays, making professional assistance critical.

At Undisputed Legal, we combine investigative precision with a comprehensive understanding of New York’s service requirements. Our process servers are trained to manage these intricate cases efficiently, ensuring that your legal papers are served accurately, ethically, and in full compliance with CPLR standards.

For reliable, professional, and court-recognized Process Service on Unknown Defendants in New York, trust the experts who deliver results every time.

ORDER PROCESS SERVICE TODAY

Order Process Service Today – Contact Undisputed Legal at (212) 203-8001 or visit our headquarters at One World Trade Center, 85th Floor, New York, NY 10007.
Our team is ready to ensure your documents are served promptly, correctly, and in full compliance with state and federal law.

WHAT OUR CLIENTS ARE SAYING

FOR ASSISTANCE SERVING LEGAL PAPERS IN NEW YORK

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 CPLR § 1024

² CPLR § 306-b (Service deadline for starting an action)

³ A party who is ignorant, in whole or in part, of the name or identity of a person who may properly be made a party, may proceed against such person as an unknown party by designating so much of his name and identity as is known. If the name or remainder of the name becomes known all subsequent proceedings shall be taken under the true name and all prior proceedings shall be deemed amended accordingly. 

⁴ Orchard Park Central School Dist. v. Orchard Park Teachers Ass’n, 378 N.Y.S.2d 511, 50 A.D.2d 462 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

⁵ Goldberg v. Boatmax Inc., 41 A.D.3d 255, 256 (1st Dep’t 2007)

⁶ Holmes v. City of New York. Holmes, 132 A.D.3d at 954.

‘During the arrest in Holmes, the plaintiff suffered injuries at the hands of the police. The cop who detained him, under the alias ‘John Doe,’ was the target of his legal lawsuit. During his criminal trial, Holmes was declared not guilty. He asserts that it was during this trial that he first learnt the identity of the officer who had arrested him. Holmes sought to replace the arresting officer’s true name after the criminal trial and after the statutory statute of limitations had expired, which was one year and ninety days. The Supreme Court’s decision to deny the motion was upheld by the Second Department, which found that Holmes had not shown enough effort to try to find out who had arrested him before the statute of limitations ran out. This was due to factors such as, ‘[t]here is no indication in the record that the plaintiffs engaged in any pre-action disclosure or made any Freedom of Information Law requests.’ 

⁷ According to CPLR Section 306-b

⁸ The ‘necessary defendants’ in a mortgage foreclosure case are actually listed in RPAPL 1311

⁹ Publication shall be made in a newspaper published in an adjacent county if no such newspaper exists in the county where the action is pending.

¹0 The defendant must be served in a way that is ‘reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise the defendant’ of the case in order for the court to hear these petitions

¹1 306-b of the CPLR.

¹2 Badenhop v. Badenhop, 84 AD2d 771, 444 NYS2d 112 (2d Dept 1981)

¹3 Bumpus v. Nyc Tr. Auth., 66 A.D.3d 26, 883 N.Y.S.2d 99, 2009 NY Slip Op 5737 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)

¹4 Mission & Organization – OEC. (n.d.). https://www.nyc.gov/site/oec/about/foil-request.page

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.