No reason appears for disturbing the Special Referee's credibility finding that defendant's employee, a 16-year-old part-time receptionist, never stated to plaintiff's process server that he was authorized to accept service of process on defendant's behalf ( see, Nager v. Panadis, 238 A.D.2d 135). Nor does it appear why the process server should have otherwise supposed that the receptionist was authorized to accept service of process ( see, Fashion Page v. Zurich Ins. Co., 50 N.Y.2d 265, 273), or that a person who was so authorized was resisting service ( cf., Austrian Lance Stewart v. Rockefeller Ctr., 163 A.D.2d 125, 128-129). It does not avail plaintiff that the receptionist immediately delivered the process to an authorized person ( see, Fashion Page v. Zurich Ins. Co., supra).

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.