Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
It is not refuted that, although plaintiff's process server delivered a summons with notice to a person of suitable age and discretion at defendant's actual place of business, he thereafter mailed a copy to an address at which defendant had not resided for six years, notwithstanding that the defendant's current address was listed in the telephone directory. Since the plaintiff failed to comply with the specific mandates of CPLR 308 (2), the purported service was ineffective to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant (see, Macchia v Russo, 67 N.Y.2d 592; Feinstein v Bergner, 48 N.Y.2d 234). Moreover, the process server's statement, contained in an affidavit in opposition to defendant's motion, that "someone" at the defendant's office gave him the defendant's "home address" did not compel further inquiry into the issue of whether the defendant should have been estopped from relying on the defect in service (Feinstein v Bergner, supra; Sapienza v Haag, 89 A.D.2d 816; Gilbert v Lehman, 73 A.D.2d 793). Thus, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the action without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.