Opinion
November 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.).
Service of the order to show cause was properly effected upon defendant. The term "personal service" is not limited to personal delivery on the person to be served ( Matter of Reilly v Scaringe, 133 A.D.2d 900, 901, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 609).
The IAS Court properly determined that defendant was in arrears. A hearing was not necessary concerning defendant's supposed right to credits ( see, Adler v Adler, 203 A.D.2d 81). Domestic Relations Law § 244 mandates a court to enter a money judgment against a spouse who "defaults in paying any sum of money as required by the judgment or order" except where "the defaulting party shows good cause for failure to make application for relief from the judgment or order directing such payment prior to the accrual of such arrears". This provision "has divested the court of discretion in deciding whether to enter judgment on a motion for support arrearages" ( Hacker v Hacker, 119 A.D.2d 441). Defendant never requested any modification of the temporary award, previously affirmed by this Court ( 210 A.D.2d 138), nor did he ask to offset the amount of his financial obligations to plaintiff.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.