Colapinto v. Heinfling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Colapinto v. Heinfling

24 A.D.3d 440, 804 N.Y.S.2d 686

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

DecidedDecember 5, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.3d 440 (Colapinto v. Heinfling) 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

Colapinto v. Heinfling, 24 A.D.3d 440, 804 N.Y.S.2d 686 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Lawrence, J.), dated August 24, 2004, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Watson, S.M.) dated June 17, 2004, which denied her petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

The Family Court properly determined that, pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (see Family Ct Act art 5-B), the State of Florida retained “continuing, exclusive jurisdiction” over the support order based on an initial child support order issued by the Florida court in 1997 (see Family Ct Act § 580-205 [d]) and on the respondent’s continued residence in the State of Florida (cf. Matter of King v King, 309 AD2d 1207 [2003]; Matter of Parenzan v Parenzan, 285 AD2d 59, 65-66 [2001]). Crane, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Lawrence, J.), dated August 24, 2004, which denied her objections to an order of the same court (Watson, S.M.) dated June 17, 2004, which denied her petition and dismissed the proceeding.

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

The Family Court properly determined that, pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (see Family Ct Act art 5-B), the State of Florida retained “continuing, exclusive jurisdiction” over the support order based on an initial child support order issued by the Florida court in 1997 (see Family Ct Act § 580-205 [d]) and on the respondent’s continued residence in the State of Florida (cf. Matter of King v King, 309 AD2d 1207 [2003]; Matter of Parenzan v Parenzan, 285 AD2d 59, 65-66 [2001]). Crane, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 440, 804 N.Y.S.2d 686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colapinto-v-heinfling-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack