A person domiciled in the state or subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the state under section 301 or 302, or his executor or administrator, may be served with the summons without the state, in the same manner as service is made within the state, by any person authorized to make service within the state who is a resident of the state or by any person authorized to make service by the laws of the state, territory, possession or country in which service is made or by any duly qualified attorney, solicitor, barrister, or equivalent in such jurisdiction.
§ 313.Service without the state giving personal jurisdiction.
Article 3. Jurisdiction and Service, Appearance and Choice of Court · Last amended 1963 · Last verified July 21, 2026
In one sentenceCPLR 313 allows service of a summons outside New York, in the same manner used within the state, on anyone domiciled in New York or subject to its long-arm jurisdiction under sections 301 or 302, giving the court full personal jurisdiction over them.
Full Text of CPLR 313
Plain-English Summary
CPLR 313 lets a plaintiff serve a summons on someone outside New York and still obtain full personal jurisdiction over them, as long as that person is domiciled in New York or has done something that subjects them to New York's long-arm jurisdiction under sections 301 or 302. The same rule reaches the executor or administrator of such a person's estate.
The service itself must follow the same methods available for service inside New York -- personal delivery, substituted service, and the rest -- just performed at an out-of-state address. The person carrying out that service can be anyone authorized to serve process within New York who resides in the state, anyone authorized to serve process under the law of the place where service happens, or a licensed attorney admitted to practice there.
Because this section reaches people whose only connection to New York runs through the long-arm statute, it works together with sections 301 and 302: those sections define who is subject to New York's jurisdiction, and section 313 supplies the mechanism for reaching them physically outside the state's borders.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a New York court get personal jurisdiction over someone served outside the state?
Yes, under CPLR 313, if the person is domiciled in New York or subject to New York's long-arm jurisdiction under sections 301 or 302.
What methods of service can be used outside New York under section 313?
The same methods available for service within New York -- the statute requires out-of-state service to follow the manner used inside the state.
Who is allowed to carry out service outside New York under CPLR 313?
A New York resident authorized to serve process in the state, anyone authorized to serve process under the law where the service takes place, or a licensed attorney admitted in that jurisdiction.
Does CPLR 313 cover service on a deceased person's estate?
Yes. It extends to the executor or administrator of someone who was domiciled in New York or subject to its jurisdiction under sections 301 or 302.
What's the difference between CPLR 313 and CPLR 314?
Section 313 supports full personal jurisdiction over the person served; section 314 covers out-of-state service in property and matrimonial actions where the court's power rests on the property or status involved, not on personal jurisdiction.
Advisory Committee Notes
This section is derived from CPA § 235, enlarged to encompass a person whose acts have submitted his person to the jurisdiction of the New York courts, as provided in §§ 301 and 302 and the various sections of the Consolidated Laws referred to in the notes to these sections. The provisions in CPA § 235 with respect to service without the state in actions in rem or quasi in rem have been placed in new CPLR § 314.
The committee considered further enlarging the section to include persons actually residing as well as domiciled within the state, to eliminate technical questions as to domicile, where the party served has a residence within the state at the time of service without the state. Assuming personal delivery of the summons to be the best type of service, no constitutional objection to such a provision would appear to exist. In Milliken v Meyer, 311 US 457 (1940), the court speaks in terms of “domicile,” but the opinion would appear to be broad enough to encompass a person actually residing in the state. See, e.g., 1 Colo Rev Stat Ann, R Civ P 4(f) (1953); Ill Ann Stat c. 110, § 16(1) (Smith-Hurd Supp 1956). Nevertheless, the committee decided not to adopt this change pending some experience with new CPLR § 302; most acts of nondomiciled residents resulting in actions here will probably be covered by this new section.
The abbreviated listing of persons qualified to make personal service without the state is substituted for the detailed listing in CPA § 233. No inconvenience or prejudice should result to any person served or desiring to make service without the state.
Service is deemed complete for purposes of the statutes of limitation when service is made outside of the state. As to extension of the time to serve responsive pleadings in such a case, see new CPLR § 3012.
The phrase “or his administrator or executor” has been added to authorize service in all types of actions upon the nonresident administrator or executor of a deceased domiciliary or of a person who would be subject to in personam jurisdiction under new CPLR § 301 or 302 were he alive. See also the specific clause in § 302 providing such jurisdiction. Formerly the administrator or executor of a deceased domiciliary must designate the clerk of the Surrogate’s Court as an agent for service of any process issuing from the Surrogate’s Court. Surr Ct Act § 95. The CPA and RCP had no provision for personal service upon a nonresident administrator or executor. As a result, in the absence of a special provision such as § 52 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, such executors have been insulated, in their representative capacity, against in personam judgments. Heilbrunn v Kellogg, 253 App Div 753, 1 NYS2d 193 (2d Dept), affd without opinion 279 NY 773, 18 NE2d 861 (1939); Central Greyhound Lines v Faust, 196 Misc 53, 91 NYS2d 609 (Sup Ct), affd without opinion 278 App Div 1012, 105 NYS2d 1010 (4th Dept 1951); Doughney v Fauset, 9 Misc 2d 759, 170 NYS2d 419 (Sup Ct 1958).
Service without the state under this section can be made in any manner that is permitted within the state pursuant to the new CPLR provisions. Formerly, service without the state was limited to personal delivery or publication. CPA §§ 232, 233, 235. The permissive methods of service without the state have been increased in order to enhance the possibility of acquiring in personam jurisdiction over nonresidents subject to our courts’ jurisdiction under such statutes as new CPLR § 302.
This section does not restrict the right to acquire in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident in certain cases by delivery of the summons to the Secretary of State or by any other manner of service specifically authorized by a statute, such as § 52 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Amendment History
Add, L 1962, ch 308, § 1, eff Sept 1, 1963.
Source & verification. Provision text, History, and Advisory
Committee Notes are reproduced verbatim from the Consolidated Laws of New York.
Last verified July 21, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: serving a defendant out of state New YorkNew York long-arm serviceout of state service personal jurisdiction NYCPLR service outside New York