Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

IN RE: Henirich FELDMAN, appellant, v. Peri FELDMAN, respondent.

Decided: August 12, 2008

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, MARK C. DILLON, and WILLIAM E. McCARTHY, JJ. Mallow, Konstam & Hager, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Abe H. Konstam, Alla Kurolapnik, and Syma Diamond of counsel), for appellant. Sally DeLuca, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Steven M. Bernstein of counsel), for respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 72 for grandparent visitation, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated June 22, 2007, as granted the respondent's motion to confirm the report of a Referee dated April 27, 2007, to vacate her default in appearing, and to dismiss the petition.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the petitioner's contentions, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed the Referee's report finding that service of process was not made upon the respondent in accordance with the order to show cause (see CPLR 2214[d] ).  Since personal jurisdiction was never acquired over the respondent, the order entered against her upon default was properly vacated, and the petition was properly dismissed (see Alden Personnel, Inc. v. David, 38 A.D.3d 697, 833 N.Y.S.2d 136;  Matter of Kapsis v. Kelleher, 37 A.D.3d 381, 828 N.Y.S.2d 896;  European Am. Bank v. Legum, 248 A.D.2d 206, 669 N.Y.S.2d 595;  Goldmark v. Keystone & Grading Corp., 226 A.D.2d 143, 640 N.Y.S.2d 89).   There is no evidentiary support in the record for the petitioner's conclusory assertion that the deadline for service specified in the order to show cause was extended by the court.

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

Copied to clipboard