Opinion
June 4, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.).
We agree with the IAS court that the individual who allegedly accepted service on respondent's behalf, a building porter, not in respondent's employ, was neither a person of suitable age and discretion within the meaning of CPLR 308 (2) (1 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N Y Civ Prac ¶ 308.13), nor authorized to receive service (General Associations Law § 13; cf., Matter of Franz v. Board of Educ., 112 A.D.2d 934, 935, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 603; 2 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, op. cit., ¶ 320.07). Moreover, the process was not thereafter mailed in accordance with CPLR 308 (2).
Petitioners, having failed to meet their burden of proof by a preponderance of evidence that personal jurisdiction was obtained over respondent president, the proceeding was properly dismissed (Lexington Ins. Co. v. Schuyler Bumpers, 125 A.D.2d 554).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Wallach and Smith, JJ.