On March 8, 2011, petitioner commenced this Article 75 proceeding by filing the instant order to show cause, under motion sequence number one, for an order; (1) confirming an arbitrator's award, (2) directing judgment to be entered thereon pursuant to statute in that case made and provided, and (3) for such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

The respondent did not appear or submit opposition to the petition.

The petition alleges the following salient facts. The petitioner and respondent were business partners who agreed to dissolve their partnership, whereby the partners signed dissolution papers and granted each other mutual releases. Subsequent to the dissolution of the business, the respondent accused the petitioner of misappropriating funds prior to the dissolution, which the petitioner denies.

The petitioner further alleges that petitioner and respondent agreed to appear before the Rabbinical Court of Mechon Hahoyroa and that the parties appeared before the Rabbinical Court of Mechon L'Hoyroa.

The petitioner's motion papers consist of the order to show cause, a petition, two affidavits of service and two annexed exhibits labeled A through B. Exhibit A is described as the [*2]agreement to submit to arbitration. Exhibit B is a copy of the arbitrator's ruling, in both Hebrew text and an English translation.

On March 14, 2011, the Honorable Justice Anthony Cutrona directed personal service of the petition on the respondent on or before March 21, 2011. Petitioner filed the order to show cause, petition and supporting papers with the Kings County Clerk's office on March 8, 2011. Petitioner made two attempts at service upon the respondent via personal service upon a person of suitable age and discretion on March 21, 2011, (See CPLR § 308(2)). Petitioner filed two affidavits of service with the Kings County Clerk on March 24, 2011.

Service according CPLR § 308(2) is deemed complete 10 days after filing of the affidavit of service. Therefore, service upon Nathan Nata Kerman was not complete until April 4, 2011.

The method of service provided for in an order to show cause is jurisdictional in nature and must be strictly complied with (Matter of Theodore T. v Charles T., 78 AD3d 955, 956, 912 N.Y.S.2d 72, 74 [2nd Dept., 2010]; citing, Hennessey v. DiCarlo, 21 AD3d 505, 800 N.Y.S.2d 576 [2nd Dept., 2005]). Inasmuch as petitioner did not comply with the directions of the court, the court never obtained personal jurisdiction over Nathan Nata Kerman.

Therefore, petitioner's motion to confirm an arbitration award and enter judgment in its favor is denied and the petition is dismissed without prejudice.

The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of this court.

Enter:

_________________________

J.S.C.