In Made-Ready Door Co. v. Fox Ledge Corp. (86 Misc. 2d 518 [Suffolk Dist Ct 1976]), service was made to the individual Melvin Casher by delivery of the summons and complaint to a person of suitable age and discretion at his place of employment in Suffolk and mailing same to Mr. Casher to his Nassau County residence. The court wrote that service outside Suffolk by mailing the summons and complaint to Mr. Casher's home in Nassau was not justified by either UDCA 403 or 404 (at 519-520): "It is this court's opinion that the delivery of a summons to a person of suitable age and discretion at the defendant's actual place of business within the jurisdictional limits of the court and mailing a copy of the summons to the defendant's last known residence outside the territorial limits of the court constitutes service outside the territorial limits of the court requiring the jurisdictional basis to be alleged in the complaint. The mere fact that a copy of the summons was delivered to the defendant's actual place of employment is immaterial. Service could not have been completed without mailing a copy of the summons to the defendant's last known residence outside the county. The fact that the defendant is regularly employed within the territorial limits of the court, in itself, does not justify extraterritorial service. (Roder v. Goldsmith, 49 Misc. 2d 882.) "The Uniform District Court Act requires that a summons must be served within the county in which the action is brought unless otherwise authorized by, such act or provision of law other than the CPLR. (UDCA, 403.) Section 404 of the Uniform District Court Act more specifically provides those instances when extraterritorial service may be made upon a nonresident. In these instances extraterritorial service may be made upon a nonresident. In these instances extraterritorial service may be made upon a nonresident but only if the jurisdictional basis is alleged in the pleadings. (All-State Credit Corp. v. Defendants Listed in 669 Default Judgments, 61 Misc. 2d 677; Henry Sash & Door Co. v. Medi-Complex, 69 Misc. 2d 269.)