You are here: / / ALTHOUGH MOTHER WAS GENERALLY AWARE FATHER HAD MOVED TO DELAWARE, FATHER...
,

ALTHOUGH MOTHER WAS GENERALLY AWARE FATHER HAD MOVED TO DELAWARE, FATHER DID NOT SPECIFY AN AGENT FOR SERVICE AS REQUIRED BY THE FAMILY COURT ACT; THEREFORE SERVICE OF MOTHER’S OBJECTIONS TO THE SUPPORT MAGISTRATE’S ORDER AT FATHER’S LAST KNOWN ADDRESS WAS PROPER (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s objections to the Support Magistrate’s order should not have been rejected on the ground father was not properly served. The papers were served at father’s prior address in Brooklyn. Although mother was aware father may live in Delaware from representation made to the court, father did not specify an agent for service as required by Family Court Act. Therefore service at father’s last known address was proper:

“Family Court Act § 439(e) provides, in pertinent part, that [a] party filing objections shall serve a copy of such objections upon the opposing party,’ and that [p]roof of service upon the opposing party shall be filed with the [Family Court] at the time of filing of objections and any rebuttal'” … . Here, the mother served her objections upon the father at an address in Brooklyn, which was the same address she listed for the father in her petition. The court rejected the proof of service because, inter alia, the court file reflected a Delaware address for the father. While the mother was generally aware that the father represented to the court that his address was in Delaware, there was no evidence in the record that the address was ever disclosed to the mother. Moreover, following the mailing of the original summons to the father’s Brooklyn address, he filed an Address Confidentiality Affidavit. In his Address Confidentiality Affidavit, the father failed to specify an agent for service, and there was no evidence that the mother ever received notice of an agent for service for the father as required by Family Court Act § 154-b(2)(c). Under these circumstances, the mother had insufficient notice of the father’s purported new address in Delaware and lacked notice of an agent for service for the father. Therefore, service upon the father at the address last known to the mother was proper (see CPLR 2103[b][2] …). Matter of Deyanira P. v Rodolfo P.-B., 2020 NY Slip Op 03918, Second Dept 7-15-20

 

You might also like
MOTION, ON THE EVE OF TRIAL, TO AMEND THE BILL OF PARTICULARS TO CHANGE THE DATE OF THE INJURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
LESSEE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE LAUNDRY ROOM COULD BE LIABLE FOR INJURY CAUSED BY A DEFECTIVE WASHING MACHINE, LESSEE DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER IT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT, DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION; BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FRAUD APPLIES TO A CONVERSION ACTION, ALTHOUGH THE FRAUD BEGAN IN 1998 PLAINTIFF COULD NOT HAVE BECOME AWARE OF IT UNTIL 2013, PLAINTIFF’S ACTION IS TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DID NOT SUBMIT PROOF IT HAD THE FINANCIAL ABILITY TO CLOSE ON THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Cross-Examination About Omission from Witness’ Statement to Police Should Have Been Allowed
Whether Arbitrator Erred In Applying the Applicable Law Is Beyond the Courts’ Review Powers
DEFENDANT, AT THE PLEA PROCEEDINGS, WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION TO BE IMPOSED OR THE MAXIMUM WHICH COULD BE IMPOSED; GUILTY PLEA VACATED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT WHICH PURCHASED PROPERTY IN THE TOWN OF ISLIP WAS ENTITLED... JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE JURY INSTRUCTION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT; NEW TRIAL MUST BE...