Archambo v. Churchill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Archambo v. Churchill

176 A.D.2d 1235, 576 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13955

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 4, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 176 A.D.2d 1235 (Archambo v. Churchill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Archambo v. Churchill, 176 A.D.2d 1235, 576 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13955 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Respondent argues that the reciprocal support order granted to petitioner for the support of the parties’ children was improperly granted because the previous order of the Pennsylvania court awarding custody of the children to petitioner was not entitled to full faith and credit in New York. We disagree. Because Pennsylvania was the home State of the children, the Pennsylvania court had jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act to modify the prior order of the New York State Family Court which had awarded custody to respondent (see, Domestic Relations Law §75-c [5]; §75-d [1] [a] [i]; 23 Pa Cons Stat Annot §§ 5343, 5344 [a] [1] [i]; see also, Vanneck v Vanneck, 49 NY2d 602; Quinn v Quinn, 145 AD2d 754). (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Buck, J. — Child Support.) Present — Callahan, A. P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Respondent argues that the reciprocal support order granted to petitioner for the support of the parties’ children was improperly granted because the previous order of the Pennsylvania court awarding custody of the children to petitioner was not entitled to full faith and credit in New York. We disagree. Because Pennsylvania was the home State of the children, the Pennsylvania court had jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act to modify the prior order of the New York State Family Court which had awarded custody to respondent (see, Domestic Relations Law §75-c [5]; §75-d [1] [a] [i]; 23 Pa Cons Stat Annot §§ 5343, 5344 [a] [1] [i]; see also, Vanneck v Vanneck, 49 NY2d 602; Quinn v Quinn, 145 AD2d 754). (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Buck, J. — Child Support.) Present — Callahan, A. P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 A.D.2d 1235, 576 N.Y.S.2d 730, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/archambo-v-churchill-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack