DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The defendant's claim that he was not properly served with the summons and complaint is without merit. The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiff's motion for service pursuant to CPLR 308(5). The plaintiff made an adequate showing that service pursuant to CPLR 308(1), (2), or (4) was impracticable ( see Solomon v. Horie Karate Dojo, 283 A.D.2d 479; Astrologo v. Serra, 240 A.D.2d 606). Further, the Supreme Court obtained personal jurisdiction over the defendant ( see CPLR 308; DiBlasio v. Kaufman, 282 A.D.2d 496; Matter of Rodriguez v. Wing, 251 A.D.2d 335).
The defendant also failed to demonstrate that he had a meritorious defense ( see Baumer v. Baumer, 268 A.D.2d 495; Adams v. Adams, 255 A.D.2d 535), as he failed to rebut the plaintiff's prima facie case of abandonment by showing that his extended absence was justified ( see Maryon v. Maryon, 60 A.D.2d 623). Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment of divorce entered upon his failure to appear or answer ( see CPLR 5015[a]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., FRIEDMANN, TOWNES and MASTRO, JJ., concur.