With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 311(a)(1) (McKinney 2000). In tendering service, the process server may rely upon the corporation’s employees to identify the individuals authorized to accept service. Fashion Page, 50 N.Y.2d at 272-73, 428 N.Y.S.2d 890, 406 N.E.2d 747. As long as the process server’s reliance on corporate personnel is reasonable, the defendant may not later complain that it lacked notice even if the complaint was mistakenly delivered to a person who was not authorized to accept service. Id. at 273-74, 428 N.Y.S.2d 890, 406 N.E.2d 747. Buehl’s reliance on corporate security to identify Higgins as an officer authorized to accept service on behalf of Pacific appears to have been reasonable. In New York, a process server’s affidavit of service establishes a prima facie ca 533, 534 (1999) (<HOLDING>); Ninth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Yelder, 107

A: holding that there was no record of a hearing about settlement objections
B: holding that attorneys affidavit was not competent evidence of his clients agreement or communications with the defendants because it was not based on personal knowledge
C: holding that an affidavit in opposition to a motion for summary judgment that is not served at least one day before the hearing is barred by the civil practice act from consideration as evidence unless the record discloses the trial court in the exercise of its discretion has allowed the affidavit to be served and considered
D: holding that affidavit by nonparty about defendants practice of forwarding official documents to that nonparty was insufficient to warrant a traverse hearing because the nonparty lacked personal knowledge about whether defendant was personally served
D.