Plaintiff is an inmate and commenced a legal malpractice action in connection with the attorneys’ handling of a federal civil rights trial.  In New York service of process is mired in ancient practice, and few really understand how to serve a summons and complaint.  Plaintiff appears not to have understood that service upon a defendant LLP could be accomplished by service upon the Secretary of State.  So, in Johnson v Neidl  2015 NY Slip Op 05726  Decided on July 2, 2015  Appellate Division, Third Department the appeal was dismissed, and apparently, defendant was not served.

“Plaintiff, a prison inmate, commenced this legal malpractice action in connection with defendant’s representation of him during a federal civil rights trial. Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s motion for a default judgment given plaintiff’s failure to properly effectuate service upon defendant and also denied his ex parte motion for an order directing service by mail or other alternative method. Plaintiff’s subsequent motion to

reargue and/or renew was denied. Thereafter, plaintiff filed another ex parte motion seeking an order directing an alternate method of service, which the court denied. Plaintiff appeals from the denial of his motion to reargue and/or renew, as well as his subsequent ex parte motion.

Initially, we note that any challenge with regard to the denial of plaintiff’s motion to reargue and/or renew is abandoned given his failure to raise any issues thereto in his brief (see Dunn v Northgate Ford, Inc., 16 AD3d 875, 876 n 2 [2005]). To the extent that plaintiff challenges the denial of his request for an order directing an alternate method of service of the summons and complaint, it is well settled that an appeal does not lie from an ex parte order (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; see also Sholes v Meagher, 100 NY2d 333, 335 [2003]; Matter of Barnes v Schroyer, 120 AD3d 1492, 1493 [2014]; Matter of Tyler v Selsky, 267 AD2d 522, 522 [1999]). Accordingly, the appeal from that order must be dismissed.”