Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Laurie SCARANO, respondent, v. Steven SCARANO, appellant.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered December 15, 1999, the defendant father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.), dated December 15, 2007, which, inter alia, granted the motion of the plaintiff mother to hold him in contempt for failure to comply with the child support provisions contained in the parties' so-ordered agreement dated February 28, 2005, directed his incarceration for a period of 90 days in the Nassau County Correctional Facility, and permitted him to purge himself of the contempt by making payments in accordance with a schedule.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant argues that the trial court should have granted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he had been personally served with the order to show cause and motion papers upon which the finding of contempt was made. We disagree. A process server's affidavit of service constitutes prima facie evidence of proper service (see Matter of de Sanchez, 57 A.D.3d 452, 454, 870 N.Y.S.2d 24; NYCTL 1997-1 Trust v. Nillas, 288 A.D.2d 279, 732 N.Y.S.2d 872). Although a defendant's sworn denial of receipt of service generally rebuts the presumption of proper service established by the process server's affidavit and necessitates an evidentiary hearing (see Skyline Agency v. Coppotelli, Inc., 117 A.D.2d 135, 139, 502 N.Y.S.2d 479), no hearing is required where the defendant fails to swear to “specific facts to rebut the statements in the process server's affidavits” (Simonds v. Grobman, 277 A.D.2d 369, 370, 716 N.Y.S.2d 692). Here, the defendant's affidavit was insufficient. Since he never denied the specific facts contained in the process server's affidavit, no hearing was required.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 02, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)