BROWN, DANA P. v. HEUBUSCH, VICKI L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

BROWN, DANA P. v. HEUBUSCH, VICKI L.

124 A.D.3d 1396, 1 N.Y.S.3d 695

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

DecidedJanuary 2, 2015

DocketCAF 14-00136

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 A.D.3d 1396 (BROWN, DANA P. v. HEUBUSCH, VICKI L.) 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

BROWN, DANA P. v. HEUBUSCH, VICKI L., 124 A.D.3d 1396, 1 N.Y.S.3d 695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wyoming County (Michael F. Griffith, J.), entered November 26, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. The order dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, petitioner father appeals from an order that dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm. The father concedes that respondent mother moved with the children to Florida more than six months before the filing of the petition, and there is no evidence that they ever returned to New York. The record establishes that the children no longer *1397 “have a significant connection” with New York and that “substantial evidence is no longer available in this [S]tate concerning the child[ren]’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-a [1] [a]), and the father failed to submit any evidence to the contrary. We therefore conclude that Family Court properly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction (see Matter of Maida v Capraro, 86 AD3d 924, 924 [2011]; Matter of Zippo v Zippo, 41 AD3d 915, 916 [2007]).

We have considered the father’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.

Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wyoming County (Michael F. Griffith, J.), entered November 26, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. The order dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, petitioner father appeals from an order that dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm. The father concedes that respondent mother moved with the children to Florida more than six months before the filing of the petition, and there is no evidence that they ever returned to New York. The record establishes that the children no longer *1397 “have a significant connection” with New York and that “substantial evidence is no longer available in this [S]tate concerning the child[ren]’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-a [1] [a]), and the father failed to submit any evidence to the contrary. We therefore conclude that Family Court properly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction (see Matter of Maida v Capraro, 86 AD3d 924, 924 [2011]; Matter of Zippo v Zippo, 41 AD3d 915, 916 [2007]).

We have considered the father’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.

Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.3d 1396, 1 N.Y.S.3d 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-dana-p-v-heubusch-vicki-l-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack