DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the amended order is affirmed, with costs.
Under CPLR 308(5), a court is vested with the discretion to direct an alternative method for service of process when it has determined that the methods set forth in CPLR 308(1), (2), and (4) are "impracticable" (CPLR 308; see, Astrologo v. Serra, 240 A.D.2d 606; see also, Kelly v. Lewis, 220 A.D.2d 485). However, the court is without power to direct service of process pursuant to CPLR 308(5) absent a showing by the moving party that service is impracticable under the other subdivisions (see, Cooper-Fry v. Kolket, 245 A.D.2d 846; Hillary v. Grace, 213 A.D.2d 450; Tetro v. Tizov, 184 A.D.2d 633; Franchido v. Onay, 150 A.D.2d 518). Since the plaintiff failed to show that serving the defendant under CPLR 308(1), (2), or (4) would be impracticable, dismissal of the complaint was proper (see, Tetro v. Tizov, supra).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit (see, United States v. O'Neil, 118 F.3d 65, 71-72, cert denied 522 U.S. 1064; Artache v. Goldin, 173 A.D.2d 667; Leob Rhoades Co. v. De Vries, 50 A.D.2d 552; State of New Hampshire v. Emanuel, 139 N.H. 57, 649 A.2d 53).
JOY, J.P., ALTMAN, GOLDSTEIN, and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.