Although service was not attempted at appellant's place of business, there was a sufficient showing of due diligence permitting substituted service pursuant to CPLR 308 (4), the process server having attempted service at appellant's actual home address on two occasions when a working person might reasonably have been expected to be at home (cf., Barnes v. City of New York, 70 A.D.2d 580, affd 51 N.Y.2d 906). Since appellant's codefendant did not live at the same address, sustaining the traverse as to the codefendant was not logically inconsistent or unsupported by the credible evidence.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.