Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Fashion Page, Ltd. v. Zurich Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York · 1980 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureService of ProcessPersonal JurisdictionService on CorporationsCPLR 311(1)CPLR 318corporationauthorized agent

Facts

A process server went to defendant corporation's New York office and told the receptionist he had a summons and complaint to serve on Zurich and asked who handled that. The receptionist directed him to Ann Robertson, the vice-president's executive secretary, who examined the papers, said to leave them with her, and stated that she could take them. Robertson was not expressly authorized in writing to accept service, but she had for at least five years regularly accepted summonses for the vice-president when he was absent and forwarded them to the company's legal department without objection. The referee credited the process server's account and found that service was made on the person identified by defendant's own employees as authorized to accept service.

Issue

Whether a corporation is properly served under CPLR 311(1) when a process server goes to the corporation's office, makes proper inquiry, and delivers process to a secretary identified by the corporation's receptionist and by the secretary herself as authorized to accept service, even though the secretary was not formally designated under CPLR 318 and lacked express written authorization.

Rule

Under CPLR 311(1), a corporation may appoint an agent to receive service without complying with the formal designation procedure of CPLR 318. When a process server goes to the corporation's office, makes proper inquiry of the corporation's employees, and delivers process according to their directions, service should be sustained if, objectively viewed, the method used was calculated to give the corporation fair notice. CPLR 311(1) is to be liberally construed in light of its purpose of giving the corporation notice of the suit.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A process server went to North Harbor Casualty Group's office in Buffalo to serve a summons. He told the company's receptionist why he was there, and she directed him to Elena Park, the regional director's assistant, who said she could accept service and routinely sent such papers to the legal unit when executives were unavailable.

If North Harbor later moves to dismiss because Elena was not formally designated in writing to receive process, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that CPLR 311(1) is to be liberally construed to further notice, and that a corporation may appoint an agent to receive service without complying with CPLR 318's formal designation procedure. When the server goes to the corporation's office, announces the purpose, makes proper inquiry, and follows the directions of the corporation's own employees to a person who accepts the papers, service is sustained if objectively calculated to give fair notice.