Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 16, 2026

Great American Insurance Company v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC et al.

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:23-cv-09100
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4

Counsel23 of record
PLAINTIFF
Katherine E. Tammaro Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP
Mark R. Vespole Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP
Daniel A. Johnston The Willis Law Group PLLC
Justin Boes Wilson Elser
Matthew Major Lydecker
INTERESTED PARTY
David Michael Barshay Barshay, Rizzo & Lopez, PLLC
Aaron Harold Pierce Pierce & Kwok LLP
Gayle Elise Pollack Morrison Cohen, LLP (NY)
ADR PROVIDER
Jonathan T. Savella Jonathan Savella
Aaron Harold Pierce Pierce & Kwok LLP
THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT
Gallo Vitucci Klar LLPLLP4 attorneys
Aaron Frederick Fishbein, Crystal Monahan, Jonathan W. Greisman
Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C.PC2 attorneys
Michael D. Brown, Brittany L. Adikes
Kinney Liscovicz Reilly & Wolff PCPC
Justin Nolan Kinney
Hardin Kundla McKeon & Poletto
John S. Favate
MISCELLANEOUS
Brian J. Isaac Pollack Pollack Isaac & Decicco
Clifford James Law Offices of Clifford James
DEFENDANT
Matthew Steven Aboulafia Aboulafia Law Firm, LLC
Aaron Jacob Aboulafia Law Firm, LLC
Christopher James Soverow Block O'Toole Murphy, LLP

Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.

DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Great American v. Gemstone Property Management: Judge Liman allowed alternative service of a deposition subpoena on David Kaney after repeated failed personal-service attempts.

Who this affects

Great American may serve nonparty David Kaney with the deposition subpoena by attaching it to the door at his 64th Street address and mailing it there by certified mail. The order concerns the method of service and does not decide the alleged fraud dispute.

What happened

In Great American Insurance Company v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC et al., Great American sought to question nonparty David Kaney about boiler-replacement work connected to an alleged fraudulent settlement. Great American said a process server could not personally serve Kaney after six attempts at his 64th Street address.

The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 ordinarily requires delivering a subpoena to the named person. But courts may allow another method when personal service is impracticable and the method is reasonably likely to provide actual notice. The court found those requirements satisfied because the process server made repeated attempts and someone at the address confirmed that Kaney lived there.

Judge Lewis J. Liman granted Great American’s motion. The court approved attaching the subpoena and related documents to the door at Kaney’s 64th Street address and mailing them there by certified mail, and directed that proof of service be filed under Rule 45(b)(4).

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Great American Insurance Company v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC et al. · No. 1:23-cv-09100
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
July 16, 2026

Background

Great American Insurance Company alleged that a settlement reached by Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo and Subin Associates, LLP after litigation against Gemstone Property Management, LLC and DHNY IV LLC resulted from fraud. According to Great American, the alleged fraud concerned an incident in which Salcedo claimed bodily injuries after construction work related to a boiler at 25 St. Nicolas Terrace in New York. Great American alleged that the incident was staged.

David Kaney, acting for Sustainable Energy Options, LLC, entered into an agreement with Jeremy Markowitz, who acted for Gemstone Realty Partners, LLC, DHNY Apt. IV LLC, and Gemstone Property Management, LLC, concerning boiler-replacement work at 25-35 Nicholas Terrace. Kaney had previously testified that he was Sustainable Energy Options’ sole owner, member, and employee. Great American sought to depose Kaney about the agreement, including the nature and scope of the work and who performed it.

Service Attempts

Great American hired a process server through Bauer Trial Preparation to personally serve Kaney with a deposition subpoena. The process server attempted personal service six times at Kaney’s 64th Street business address. On July 10, 2026, an individual at the address confirmed that Kaney lived there but said he was not home. The process server identified the individual as Kaney’s wife or girlfriend, and she told the process server to return the next day. An attempt during the following afternoon also did not result in service.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1) generally requires serving a subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person. The court explained that courts may authorize alternative service when the party seeking it demonstrates a prior diligent attempt to serve the person personally. The affidavit describing the six attempts established that personal service was impracticable.

The alternative method also had to be reasonably calculated to ensure that Kaney actually received the subpoena. Great American proposed “nail and mail” service: attaching the subpoena and accompanying documents to the door at Kaney’s 64th Street address and mailing them to that address by certified mail. The court found the method sufficiently likely to provide actual receipt because Kaney had previously identified the address as his business address and someone there had confirmed that he lived there. The court stated that it did not matter whether the address was his business address, his residence, or both.

Ruling

The court granted Great American’s motion for alternative service. It ordered that the following would constitute proper service on Kaney:

1. Affixing the subpoena and accompanying documents to the door at Kaney’s 64th Street address; and 2. Mailing the subpoena and accompanying documents by certified mail to that address.

The court directed that proof of service be filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(4). It also directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket No. 333.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.