Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff established that her process server exercised due diligence in attempting to serve the defendants pursuant to CPLR 308 (1) and (2) before resorting to "nail and mail" service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4) ( see, Singh v. Gold Coin Laundry Equip., 234 A.D.2d 358; cf., Walker v. Manning, 209 A.D.2d 691). The Supreme Court's determination that the plaintiff's process server otherwise properly complied with the requirements of CPLR 308 (4), depended upon its determination as to the credibility of the witnesses who testified at the hearing ( see, Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. Roth, 240 A.D.2d 466). Its conclusions in that regard are supported by the evidence and will not be disturbed on appeal.
Bracken, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.