The record before the Special Referee supports his finding that plaintiff's process server was not barred from proceeding to defendant's apartment by the doorman of defendant's building, whose permission to enter the building was never requested even though he readily supplied defendant's apartment number. Under these circumstances, where no attempt was made to proceed to defendant's apartment, it cannot be held that delivery of the papers in the lobby of the apartment house to the doorman was a delivery to defendant's "actual * * * dwelling place" within the meaning of CPLR 308 (2) (cf., duPont, Glore Forgan Co. v Chen, 41 N.Y.2d 794, 797-798). The action was therefore properly dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Kupferman, Asch, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.