Petitioners waived their right to contest late service of the motion to dismiss by opposing it on the merits ( Todd v. Gull Contr. Co., 22 A.D.2d 904). In any event, were we to review the issue, we would find that petitioners were not prejudiced as the court's scheduling of the hearing was the result of their own initial insistence on an immediate hearing date ( see, Glasz v Glasz, 173 A.D.2d 937). Concerning the merits, the record supports Family Court's finding that respondents' decision not to let petitioners see the child was based on legitimate concerns for the welfare of the child ( see, Matter of Coulter v. Barber, 214 A.D.2d 195; Matter of Luma v. Kawalchuk, 240 A.D.2d 896).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.