You are here: / / PETITIONER HAD THE BURDEN TO PROVE RESPONDENT WAS SERVED; THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE...
,

PETITIONER HAD THE BURDEN TO PROVE RESPONDENT WAS SERVED; THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE REVERSED THE BURDEN OF PROOF; NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, ordering a new hearing, determined the Support Magistrate did not apply the correct standard to whether respondent (father) was served with the petition seeking an order of filiation and child support. The burden of proof of proper service was on mother:

The Support Magistrate did not apply the correct standard in weighing the evidence adduced at the hearing. “It is well established that it is the plaintiff [or the petitioner] who bears the ultimate burden of proving by preponderating evidence that jurisdiction over the defendant [or the respondent] was obtained” … . The plaintiff or the petitioner may sustain that burden, inter alia, by introducing the affidavit of service and the testimony of the process server, or evidence demonstrating that the process server is unavailable or that diligent efforts were made to locate the process server to no avail … . Here, the mother, as the party who commenced this proceeding, was the party who bore the burden of proving that jurisdiction was obtained over the father. At the conclusion of the hearing, however, the Support Magistrate denied that branch of the father’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(4) to vacate the order of support, finding that he failed to credibly meet his burden of proving that he was not served with the petition … . Matter of Kathleen T.K. v Eric C.S., 2020 NY Slip Op 02266, Second Dept 4-9-20

 

You might also like
THE LOCAL LAW REQUIRING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO BUILDINGS IDENTIFIED AS “HISTORIC” IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL (SECOND DEPT).
“For Cause” Challenges to Jurors Who Could Only Say They Would “Try” to Be Fair Should Have Been Granted
Town Failed to Demonstrate It Did Not Create Dangerous Condition—Summary Judgment in Favor of Town Denied—Exception to Written Notice Requirement​
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRS ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL BECAUSE THEY OFFERED NO PROOF OF WHEN THE STAIRS WERE LAST INSPECTED (SECOND DEPT).
RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE NOT SHOWN TO BE APPLICABLE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS PROPERLY MAILED AND THE DEFECT COULD NOT BE CURED BY THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED IN REPLY (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANTS SUBMITTED CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WEATHER IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO THE STORM IN PROGRESS RULE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Trial Court Should Have Stayed Arbitration and Held Framed-Issue Hearing to Determine Whether Another Driver Involved in Collision​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE REOPENED THE NEGLECT HEARING WHEN MOTHER ARRIVED AT... EVIDENCE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND MARIJUANA USE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO FIND THAT...