F. I. duPont, Glore Forgan & Co. v. Chen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a building’s doorman can be a “person of suitable age and discretion” unless the record suggests that “the duties of [that] particular doorman were other than those of the regular apartment house doorman”
• affirming the propriety of a Deputy Sherriff’s service upon a doorman because it was “found explicitly that this doorman had functioned as a responsible communicator; he had informed the Deputy Sheriff that defendants had received the latter’s message”
• service on an apartment building doorman was sufficient where resident told doorman not to admit callers without consent and doorman refused process server admittance into the apartment building's front entrance
• service on the doorman proper under New York rules of service when doorman refused process server access to the defendant’s apartment and when it is doorman’s job to take deliveries of all types for residents
• erroneous apartment number 16H deemed inconsequentially different from correct number, 164
• “[I]f a process server is not permitted to proceed to the actual apartment by the doorman or some other employee, the outer bounds of the actual dwelling place must be deemed to extend to the location at which the process server’s progress is arrested”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).