DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff claims that at a hearing to determine the validity of service, the Supreme Court improperly rejected the process server's corrected affidavit in favor of the defendant's uncorroborated testimony that he and his wife did not reside at the address where service was effected.
At a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the credible evidence that service was properly made (see, Vito M. Fosella Bldrs. Gen. Contrs. v. Silver, 208 A.D.2d 525). Moreover, the Supreme Court's determination as to the credibility of the witnesses on that issue is entitled to great deference on appeal, and should not be overturned if supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence (see, Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Roth, 240 A.D.2d 466; Citibank v. Freund, 238 A.D.2d 299). The Supreme Court's determination that service on the defendant was not effective is amply supported by the record and based on a fair interpretation of the evidence. Further, the plaintiff made no showing that service under all of the other subsections was impracticable in order to permit the expedient service on the defendants' insurance carrier (see, CPLR 308; Dudley v. Kerwick, 84 A.D.2d 884).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.