Coney v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:25-cv-05011
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Coney v. The Trustees of Columbia University, Judge Broderick denied email service for nine individuals and denied it as moot for NYP.
The ruling affected Sescily Renee Coney’s attempt to serve nine individual defendants by email and addressed the request concerning New York Presbyterian Hospital, which had waived service.
What happened
In Coney v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Sescily Renee Coney, who was representing herself, asked to serve ten defendants by email. New York Presbyterian Hospital had waived service, so the court treated that part of the request as moot.
The other nine defendants were individuals. The court explained that federal and New York rules generally require traditional service methods, such as personal delivery, service at a person’s home or workplace, or mailing. Email service is available only when those methods are impracticable. Coney described some efforts to find and serve the defendants, but the court found that she had not shown why the traditional methods could not be used for each person.
Judge Broderick denied Coney’s motion for alternative service by email, including denying as moot the portion concerning New York Presbyterian Hospital. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Document 29.
The detailed version
- Coney v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-05011
- Vernon Broderick
- July 10, 2025
Background
Sescily Renee Coney, proceeding without a lawyer, moved for substituted and alternative service by email on ten defendants. She relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3), which concerns service in foreign countries, while acknowledging that limitation. Coney argued that courts had applied the same principle to permit alternative service within the United States when traditional methods were ineffective, but she did not cite supporting authority.
New York Presbyterian Hospital had waived service. The remaining nine defendants were Lorraine Frazier, Candice Smith, Heidi Hahn-Schroeder, Mary Hickey, Ellen Fahey, Amanda Kostreva, Audrey Brown, David Seltzer, and Emily Fisher. Coney did not seek alternative service for The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York in this motion.
Legal Standard
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), which governs service on an individual within the United States. Under that rule, service may follow the law of the state where the federal district court is located. New York law permits personal service and certain forms of delivery and mailing to a person’s actual workplace or residence. If those methods cannot be completed with due diligence, New York law provides another method involving posting and mailing. Only when those methods are impracticable may a court authorize alternative service, including service by email.
The court stated that a plaintiff must make some showing that the prescribed methods cannot be used. For each traditional method, the plaintiff should provide facts about the steps taken, when they were taken, and why the method was not practicable under the circumstances.
Court’s Analysis
Coney described efforts that included appearing at workplaces, searching for current residential addresses in New York, and using search databases. She also described steps concerning each defendant. However, the court found that she did not show impracticability. For several defendants, she made only one attempt at their workplaces on June 27, 2025 and stated only that they were “unavailable.” The court found those general statements insufficient.
The court also found that Coney had not shown impracticability at the defendants’ residences. As an example, Coney identified an address for Smith but did not explain why service was impracticable merely because no one answered the door after one knock by a process server on June 27, 2025.
Disposition
The court held that Coney had not shown that the defendants could not be served through traditional methods. It therefore stated that it lacked power under New York law to direct service by email. The motion for alternative service by email was DENIED. The portion concerning New York Presbyterian Hospital was denied as moot because that defendant had waived service. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Document 29.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.