Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): employees to determine who has authority to accept service, service is proper when, objectively viewed, it is calculated to give notice to the corporation. See id. at 273, 428 N.Y.S.2d 890, 406 N.E.2d 747 (“[W]hen the corporation is regularly doing business in the State, it generally cannot be heard to complain that the summons was delivered to the wrong person when the process server has gone to its offices, made proper inquiry of the defendant’s own employees, and delivered the summons according to their directions.”). Thus, service may be sustained where the employee accepting service has apparent authority to do so. Courts within the Second Circuit have adopted this broadening approach. See, e.g., Melkaz Int’l Inc. v. Flavor Innovation Inc., 167 F.R.D. 634, 642-43 (E.D.N.Y.1996) (<HOLDING>); Leo v. Gen. Elec. Co., 111 F.R.D. 407, 414 
 Holding statements: (A) holding injured employee who asked his employer for medical assistance and employer refused and employee then went to physician of his own choice employee could recover medical benefits (B) holding service on corporation proper where process server went to corporate defendants headquarters identified himself to an employee of corporate defendant and stated that he was there to serve legal papers and the employee then directed him to another employee who accepted service even though neither employee was authorized to accept service and neither represented that she was in fact so authorized because both were obviously corporate defendant employees and the employee redelivered the summons and complaint to an employee authorized to accept service on the same date (C) holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service (D) holding that res judicata properly barred claims based on an employers decision to terminate an employee because the termination was not a fresh act of discrimination rather it was the same decision not to allow the employee to return to work that the employee had challenged previously (E) holding that a clerical employee was not an agent authorized to accept service of process for the corporation
Output (English): holding that a clerical employee was not an agent authorized to accept service of process for the corporation