ce and that Barthod was not authorized by law to accept service, which Mr. Barthod clearly did not do, this would not negate service. See Shedlin v. State Tax Commission, 62 A.D.2d 806, 808-809 (st Y.A.D. 1978) (service on a secretary who protested that she could not 4 A true and correct copy of NY CPIS §3I (aX I )

stockholder but by one claiming against him and seeking to avoid the =erpetration of a fraud under the cover of the corporate veil." =nbsp;(Orda v State Tax Commission, 25 A.D.2d 332, affd, 19 N.Y.2d 636). =nbsp;ln fact, New York's Court of Appeals stated in Morris v. New York =ept. of Taxation & Fin., 82 N.Y.2d 13