Summary
In Desilets v Desilets (262 AD2d 482, 483 [2d Dept 1999]), similarly, the Appellate Division concluded that the mother, by her testimony, made a prima facie case of proper service of process in the originating Florida action.
Summary of this case from ATTY. GEN. OF CAN. v. GormanOpinion
Argued May 4, 1999
June 14, 1999
In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Segal, J.), dated May 15, 1998, which sustained the father's objections to an order of the same court (Castaldi, H.E.), dated January 6, 1998, which, after a hearing, found, inter alia, that the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District, Broward County, Florida, had personal jurisdiction over him when it entered an amended judgment of divorce between the parties on February 22, 1984, and denied his petition pursuant to former Domestic Relations Law § 37-a Dom. Rel. to vacate the registration in New York of an order of support contained in the amended judgment of divorce.
Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Kristin M. Helmers and Deborah R. Douglas of counsel), for appellant.
David J. Hernandez, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Harly Goldberg of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the father's objections to the order of the Hearing Examiner which granted the mother's petition to register the order of support contained in the amended judgment of divorce are denied, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a determination in accordance herewith as to the amount of accrued arrears.
At the hearing before Hearing Examiner Castaldi to determine the validity of service of process upon the father, the mother made out a prima facie case that the father was properly served with process in the Florida divorce action and jurisdiction over him was properly obtained in accordance with Florida Law ( see, Remington Invs. v. Seiden, 240 A.D.2d 647; Kenny v. Lennox Hill Hosp., 91 A.D.2d 568). The father's testimony to the contrary merely raised a factual issue which was resolved against him by the Hearing Examiner, who saw and heard the parties. That determination, which is supported by the record, was entitled to great deference. The Family Court erred in reversing that determination, and we therefore reinstate it ( see, Matter of Drago v. Drago, 138 A.D.2d 704; Matter of Karrie B. [Paul H.], 207 A.D. 1002; [ 207 A.D.2d 1002], Matter of McCarthy v. Braiman, 125 A.D.2d 572).