Opinion
January 30, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proving that she obtained jurisdiction over the defendant corporation (see, Preferred Elec. Wire Corp. v Duracraft Prods., 114 A.D.2d 407). The process server employed by the plaintiff effected service upon the wrong corporation, Trailways Incorporated, and upon a person who has no connection with the defendant corporation. In so doing, the process server failed to act reasonably and diligently in attempting to fulfill the mandate of CPLR 311 (1) (see, McDonald v Ames Supply Co., 22 N.Y.2d 111). The fact that the defendant actually did receive notice of the action does not serve to render the improper service valid (see, McDonald v Ames Supply Co., supra). Assuming, arguendo, that the court erred in refusing to permit the introduction of a telephone directory listing into evidence, and in failing to take judicial notice of the same, the record still supports the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish that the process server acted reasonably and diligently.
The plaintiff's contention that "the defendant must be estopped from using the confusion it created regarding the identities of these corporations as a weapon to evade jurisdiction in this manner" may not be used as a ground to obtain reversal in this court, as it was not raised in the court of first instance (see, Lang v Cohalan, 127 A.D.2d 17, 21; Nelson v Times Sq. Stores Corp. 110 A.D.2d 691, appeal dismissed 67 N.Y.2d 645). In any event, that contention is not supported by the record (see, Weiss v Glatt Pack Kosher, 138 A.D.2d 591; Boser v Burdick, 62 A.D.2d 1134). Mangano, J.P., Brown, Kunzeman and Kooper, JJ., concur.