50 N.Y.2d 265 (1980)
A corporation can be properly served if the process server, after making reasonable inquiry, delivers the summons to an employee who the corporation’s employees identify as authorized to accept service, even if that employee is not a designated agent or officer.
Summary
Fashion Page, Ltd. sued Zurich Insurance to recover on a fire insurance policy. Zurich moved to dismiss, arguing improper service because the summons was delivered to a secretary, not an authorized agent. The process server inquired at Zurich’s office and was directed to the secretary, who accepted the summons. The New York Court of Appeals held that service was valid, emphasizing that the process server acted reasonably in relying on the corporation’s employees to identify the proper person for service. The court reasoned that a corporation cannot benefit from internal procedures that mislead process servers if the method of service, viewed objectively, provides fair notice to the corporation.
Facts
Fashion Page, Ltd. sought to recover under a fire insurance policy issued by Zurich Insurance after a fire destroyed the insured building.
The process server went to Zurich’s office, informed the receptionist of his intent to serve a summons and complaint, and asked who could accept service.
The receptionist directed him to Ann Robertson, a secretary to the vice-president.
Robertson accepted the papers, stating, “Okay, leave it with me…I’ll take it,” and confirmed she was authorized to do so.
Robertson routinely accepted service on behalf of the corporation, without objection, for five years whenever her boss was unavailable, then forwarded the papers to the legal department.
Procedural History
Zurich moved to dismiss the action, claiming that Robertson was not authorized to accept service under CPLR 311(1).
A Special Referee determined that service was valid because the process server acted diligently and served the person identified by Zurich’s employees as authorized to accept service.
The Supreme Court confirmed the Referee’s report and denied Zurich’s motion to dismiss.
The Appellate Division affirmed.
The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether service upon a corporation is valid under CPLR 311(1) when the summons and complaint are delivered to a secretary identified by the corporation’s employees as authorized to accept service, even if the secretary is not a designated agent or officer of the corporation.
Holding
Yes, because the process server acted reasonably in relying on the corporation’s employees to identify the appropriate person to accept service, and the method of service, viewed objectively, provided fair notice to the corporation.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized that the purpose of CPLR 311(1) is to ensure that the corporation receives notice of the lawsuit.
The court stated, “The corporation is free to choose its own agent for receipt of process without regard to title or position.”
The court distinguished between appointing an agent to accept service generally and formally “designating” an agent under CPLR 318, noting the latter is optional and provides benefits like preventing the statute of limitations from tolling if the defendant leaves the state.
The court reasoned that a process server cannot be expected to know a corporation’s internal procedures and can rely on corporate employees to identify the proper person for service. If the process server makes a reasonable inquiry and serves the summons as directed by the corporation’s employees, the service should be upheld.
The court found that the process server acted reasonably by inquiring with the receptionist and relying on her direction to Robertson, who then confirmed her authority to accept service.
The court concluded, “If despite these circumstances the summons was in fact served on the wrong person, the fault lies with the defendant, and not with the process server who did all that he should be expected to do to see that it was properly delivered.”
Judge Gabrielli concurred, arguing that the decision should rest on the fact that Mrs. Robertson was impliedly appointed an agent for service of process.