In Dolan v. Linnen, 195 Misc 2d 298, 753 NYS2d 682 [2003], the Court discussed what constitutes due diligence to award a money judgment in a summary proceeding. The court in relying upon the case of Brooklyn Heights Realty Com v. Gliwa, 92 AD2d 602, 459 NYS2d 793 [2d Dept 1983] stated that "CPLR 308's due-diligence in attempting to effect in- hand or substituted service before effecting conspicuous service contrasts with RPAPL 735's lower reasonable application standard. Under RPAPL 735, although the effort the process server must make is less than that required under CPLR 308[4][due diligence], the effort must have some expectation of success. The attempt must be made at a time when the process server could reasonably expect someone to be home". Thus in Dolan, supar, Court held that: "one attempt at in-hand or substitute service must be made during working hours, between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm and a second in the morning between 6:00 am and 8:00 am or in the evening between 6:00 pm and 10:30 pm in order for the reasonable application' standard set forth in RPAPL 735 to be met (1199 Housing, 136 Misc 2d at 691, 520 NYS2d 93).