retains personal jurisdiction over Rosen, as explained later, the Plaintiff fails to state a claim against her. As a final note, it is undisputed that the Plaintiff-failed to file proof of service within 20 days as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and CPLR § 308(2). Indeed, the Plaintiffs affidavit of service was filed on September 2, 2014, more than 20 days after the mailing on July 17, 2014. “New York courts diverge as to whether the failure to file an affidavit of service with the court is itself a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal.” Garnett-Bishop v. New York Cmty. Bancorp, Inc.; No. 12-CV-2285 (ADS)(ARL), 2014 WL 5822628, at *11 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2014); compare Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. LLC v. Goldsmith, No. 10-CV-3052 (KMK), 2011 WL 1236121, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2011) (<HOLDING>) with Stan Winston Creatures, Inc. v. Toys “R”
recognizing that it is well settled law that an action is commenced by the service of a summons and without valid service of process the trial court has no jurisdiction to act holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983 holding that an attempted service on the partys counsel was insufficient without proof of the counsels actual authority to receive service holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service holding that the inescapable implication is that prior to the filing of proof of service service under  3082 is not complete and is therefore not proper within the meaning of  1441b