Psyllos v. Psyllos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Psyllos v. Psyllos

21 A.D.3d 560, 799 N.Y.S.2d 903, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8710

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 22, 2005·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), entered January 10, 2005, which denied, without a hearing, her motion (1) to vacate an order of the same court entered November 30, 2004, granting the father’s petition for custody of the subject children, upon her default, and (2) to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the order entered November 30, 2004, is vacated, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The record supports the mother’s contention that she was not properly served with the petition. The father was directed to serve the petition personally upon the mother. The father’s proof of service consisted only of a United Parcel Service tracking document. Since personal jurisdiction was not obtained, the Family Court erred in denying the mother’s motion (see Laurenzano v Laurenzano, 222 AD2d 560 [1995]; Community State Bank v Haakonson, 94 AD2d 838 [1983]). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), entered January 10, 2005, which denied, without a hearing, her motion (1) to vacate an order of the same court entered November 30, 2004, granting the father’s petition for custody of the subject children, upon her default, and (2) to dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the order entered November 30, 2004, is vacated, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The record supports the mother’s contention that she was not properly served with the petition. The father was directed to serve the petition personally upon the mother. The father’s proof of service consisted only of a United Parcel Service tracking document. Since personal jurisdiction was not obtained, the Family Court erred in denying the mother’s motion (see Laurenzano v Laurenzano, 222 AD2d 560 [1995]; Community State Bank v Haakonson, 94 AD2d 838 [1983]). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Psyllos v. Psyllos, 21 A.D.3d 560, 799 N.Y.S.2d 903, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8710 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

21 A.D.3d 560 (Psyllos v. Psyllos) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related