Calvo v. Herring

51 A.D.3d 916, 858 N.Y.S.2d 731
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 20, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 916 (Calvo v. Herring) 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
Calvo v. Herring, 51 A.D.3d 916, 858 N.Y.S.2d 731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

[917]*917In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 and Domestic Relations Law article 5-A (Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act), the attorney for the parties’ children appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (O’Shea, J.), dated June 29, 2007, which, after a hearing, denied his motion for a determination that the Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The mother filed a petition in the Family Court, Kings County, to modify an order of custody and visitation of the Superior Court of the State of Washington (hereinafter the Washington court). Subsequently, the attorney for the parties’ children moved for a determination that the Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction. The Family Court properly denied the motion and dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Washington court never determined that it no longer had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-b [1]; Stocker v Sheehan, 13 AD3d 1 [2004]). Indeed, the Washington court issued an order regarding summer visitation five days after the mother filed the instant petition. Furthermore, the father continues to reside in the state of Washington and the Washington court did not make a determination that a New York court would be a more appropriate forum (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-b). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Renaud v. Barnett
2019 NY Slip Op 5985 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Duran v. Mercado
2017 NY Slip Op 7725 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Matter of Gallagher v. Pignoloni
2016 NY Slip Op 8362 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Baptiste v. Baptiste
128 A.D.3d 815 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Milagro T. v. Manyolin G.P.
105 A.D.3d 1052 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Guzman v. Guzman
92 A.D.3d 679 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Evanitsky v. Evans
81 A.D.3d 1086 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Saunders v. Hamilton
75 A.D.3d 1172 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People ex rel. Gupta v. Gupta
63 A.D.3d 970 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 A.D.3d 916, 858 N.Y.S.2d 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calvo-v-herring-nyappdiv-2008.