Baidoo v. Blood-Dzraku
undisclosed (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may authorize service of process solely through a private message on a social media platform, such as Facebook, when traditional methods of service are impracticable and the proposed social media method is reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise the defendant of the pendency of the action.
Facts:
- Plaintiff wife Baidoo and defendant husband Blood-Dzraku married in 2009 but never resided together.
- The last known address for Blood-Dzraku was an apartment he vacated in 2011.
- Blood-Dzraku informed Baidoo that he has no fixed address or place of employment and refused to make himself available for service of divorce papers.
- Investigative firms hired by Baidoo were unable to locate Blood-Dzraku.
- Government agencies, including the post office and the Department of Motor Vehicles, had no forwarding address or record of him.
- The only reliable method of communication Baidoo had with Blood-Dzraku was through his Facebook account, which he used regularly.
- Baidoo was able to verify the Facebook account belonged to Blood-Dzraku through their message history and photos on the profile.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Baidoo filed an ex parte application in the Supreme Court of New York County, a trial-level court, seeking an order permitting an alternative method for service of a divorce summons.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does service of a divorce summons solely through a private Facebook message satisfy the requirements of due process and New York's CPLR 308(5) when traditional methods of service are impracticable?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Matthew F. Cooper
Yes. Service of a divorce summons solely through a private Facebook message is permissible under CPLR 308(5) because it satisfies the constitutional due process standard of being reasonably calculated to provide notice when traditional methods of service have proven impracticable. The plaintiff demonstrated that personal service, substitute service, and nail-and-mail service were impossible because the defendant's whereabouts were unknown and he was actively avoiding service. The court found that the proposed method of Facebook service was reasonably calculated to apprise the defendant of the action because the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence that the Facebook account was verifiably the defendant's and that he logged into it regularly. The court rejected service by publication as an alternative, deeming it 'statutorily authorized non-service' that is highly unlikely to provide actual notice, whereas Facebook service in this specific case was the method most likely to achieve that goal.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant adaptation of civil procedure to the realities of modern communication and technology. It establishes a key precedent in New York for authorizing service of process via social media, not merely as a supplemental method, but as the sole means of service in appropriate circumstances. By prioritizing the due process standard of 'reasonably calculated' notice over rigid adherence to traditional, and sometimes ineffective, methods like publication, the court provides a flexible framework for future cases involving evasive or hard-to-find defendants who maintain an active digital presence. This ruling encourages courts to consider practical, technology-based solutions to ensure that the fundamental goal of service—actual notice—is achieved.
Unlock the full brief for Baidoo v. Blood-Dzraku