Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' contentions, the person served by their process server, who was stationed at a cash register to receive money from customers, was neither the "cashier" nor the "managing agent" of the defendant corporations (see, CPLR 311; Oustecky v. Farmingdale Lanes, 41 Misc.2d 979; Colbert v International Sec. Bur., 79 A.D.2d 448, 449-455, lv denied 53 N.Y.2d 608).
The plaintiffs did not present any evidence that the appropriate person to serve on behalf of the defendant corporations was avoiding service (see, McDonald v. Ames Supply Co., 22 N.Y.2d 111, 115), or that the process server made a proper inquiry of the defendant's own employees, and delivered the summons according to their directions (see, Fashion Page v Zurich Ins. Co., 50 N.Y.2d 265, 273).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court, Kings County, properly granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction (cf., Macchia v. Russo, 67 N.Y.2d 592, 595). Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.