IN RE: NATACHA S. (2026)

Order, Family Court, New York County (Maria Arias, J.), entered on or about June 12, 2025, which denied respondent father's objection to an order, same court (Monera Mohamed Seliem, S.M.), entered on or about April 15, 2025, which, after a hearing, denied his motion to vacate a prior order, same court (Kevin Mahoney, S.M.), entered on or about March 14, 2023, which, upon his default, determined his child support obligation for the parties' two children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this child support proceeding pursuant to Article 4 of the Family Court Act, the Support Magistrate issued an order on default determining the father's child support obligation.  In reviewing a subsequent Support Magistrate order declining to vacate the default, Family Court correctly held that the father failed to move to vacate the default order within one year as required by CPLR 5015(a)(1) (see Matter of Carmit D. v. Gil D., 178 AD3d 470, 472 [1st Dept 2019] ).

Even had the father timely moved, Family Court correctly declined to vacate the default because the father failed to demonstrate both a reasonable excuse and a potentially meritorious defense (see CPLR 5015[a][1];  Matter of Natalya M. v. Chanan M., 170 AD3d 587, 587 [1st Dept 2019], lv dismissed in part and denied in part 34 NY3d 971 [2019] ).  The father never set forth any cognizable explanation as to why he failed to appear for the January 27, 2023, hearing at which Family Court determined the parties' respective child support obligations.  Appellant's assertion that Family Court lacked personal jurisdiction because he was not properly served with the underlying child support petition is belied by the record, which contains a valid affidavit of service establishing that he was personally served with the summons and child support petition on September 24, 2022 (see Family Court Act § 427, 525;  CPLR 308).  The affidavit of service of petitioner's process server constitutes prima facie proof of proper service and the “mere denial of receipt of service is insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service created by a properly-executed affidavit of service” (Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Ali, 180 AD3d 591 [1st Dept 2020], lv dismissed 36 NY3d 1046 [2021] ).

In the absence of a reasonable excuse for his default, this Court need not determine whether the father demonstrated a potentially meritorious defense to the petition for child support (see Matter of Fabiola A. v. Salvador A.G., 228 AD3d 497, 497 [1st Dept 2024] ).  Were this Court to review the issue, we would find that the father provided no meritorious ground that would warrant denial of the child support petition.