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.