Reference no: EM132182960

Colm Nolan and others brought suit against two City of Yonkers police officers and the City of Yonkers, New York, for alleged bru- tality and false arrest. The plaintiff’s process server alleged that he had served the police officer defendants at police headquarters (rather than at their place of residence), and also mailed copies of the summons and complaint to each officer at police headquarters. New York law provides that a summons can be delivered to “the actual place of business of the person to be served and by mailing a copy to the person to be served at his actual place of business.” One defendant admitted receiving a copy of the summons and complaint at his police mailbox; the second officer denied ever receiving either document at police headquar- ters. Neither officer suffered any prejudice, because both police officer defendants did receive the summons and complaint and both filed answers in a timely manner. Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits ser- vice “pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court is located.” The two police officers asked the court to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Was the service at police headquarters sufficient to confer in personam jurisdiction over these defendants? Nolan v. City of Yonkers, 168 F.R.D. 140 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)