ZAPATA-DEJESUS v. ZAPATA

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his motion to vacate the order issued upon his default in opposing the plaintiff's motion to enforce the terms of the judgment of divorce compelling him to transfer his interest in the former marital residence to her. The defendant's conclusory denials of service of the plaintiff's motion were insufficient to warrant a hearing on the validity of service ( see Simmons First Natl. Bank v Mandracchia, 248 AD2d 375; Remington Invs. v Seiden, 240 AD2d 647; Manhattan Sav. Bank v Kohen, 231 AD2d 499; Ruskin, Moscou, Evans Faltischek v Beal, 212 AD2d 687).