In the absence of competent documentary support for appellant's claim that his residence address had changed prior to the date of service of the summons and complaint, the motion court properly found, based upon course of business documentation, telephone book listings, and the listing of appellant's name as a resident in the building directory and on the door of the apartment in question, that appellant was properly served by the "nail and mail" method at his dwelling place (see, Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. Arrao, 100 A.D.2d 949, 950), following due diligence efforts by the plaintiff to serve appellant personally and refusal of service by a person of suitable age and discretion at the residence address (CPLR 308). Additionally, the aborted settlement negotiations between the parties belie appellant's claim of a legally acceptable excuse for the default (see, Klein v. Actors Directors Lab, 95 A.D.2d 757, 758).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.