Opinion
April 25, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stuart Cohen, J.).
A hearing on the propriety of service was properly directed on the basis of the process server's affidavit of service stating that he left the summons and complaint with the doorman after one of appellant's partners told the doorman, through the intercom, not to allow the process server to enter (compare, duPont, Glore Forgan Co. v Chen, 41 N.Y.2d 794, with McCormack v Goldstein, 204 A.D.2d 121). There is no merit to appellant's argument that the action should be automatically dismissed pursuant to CPLR 306-b (a), proof of service setting forth facts showing service in an authorized manner having been timely filed.
The ex parte appointment of the receiver was constitutionally valid (see, Foxfire Enters. v Enterprise Holding Corp., 837 F.2d 597, 598), and commencement of the action against any one defendant was a sufficient predicate of his appointment (Clinton Capital Corp. v One Tiffany Place Developers, 112 A.D.2d 911). Since the appointment was valid, the court properly refused to direct the receiver to turn over rents to appellant. Further, only the receiver is required to post a bond (CPLR 6403).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Rubin, Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.