Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant was properly served with process in the Massachusetts action by certified mail, return receipt requested, pursuant to Massachusetts law ( see Mass Stat Ann ch 223A, § 6). Process in the Massachusetts action was mailed to the same address listed as the defendant's address in his answering affidavit in the action. The defendant's contention that his ex-wife signed his name to the return receipt does not constitute evidence that service was not properly effected ( see Roy v. Roy, 47 Mass App 921, 715 NE2d 70). The defendant failed to rebut the prima facie showing of proper service in the underlying action ( see Dominican Sisters of Ontario v. Dunn, 272 AD2d 367; Matter of Nazarian v. Monaco Imports, 255 AD2d 265). Accordingly, the defendant was not entitled to a hearing to determine the validity of service of process.