Elbakri v. Farag

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Elbakri v. Farag

71 A.D.3d 767, 895 N.Y.S.2d 732

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 767 (Elbakri v. Farag) 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

Elbakri v. Farag, 71 A.D.3d 767, 895 N.Y.S.2d 732 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kfings County (Hepner, J.), dated December 3, 2008, which, inter alia, dismissed her petition to modify a prior order of the same court dated March 8, 2007, awarding the father sole custody of the parties’ child, so as to award her sole custody of the child, and dismissed her separate petition to modify the prior custody order so as to award the parties joint custody of the child.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof dismissing the petition to modify the order dated March 8, 2007, so as to award her sole custody of the child, and dismissing the separate petition to modify the order dated March 8, 2007, so as to award the parties joint custody of the child; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, those petitions are reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

As the initial child custody determination in this case was made by the Family Court, Kings County, the court erred in [768]*768summarily dismissing, on jurisdictional grounds, the mother’s petitions to modify a prior order of custody. Instead, the court should have determined whether it retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the custody issue pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a (1) (see Matter of Greenidge v Greenidge, 16 AD3d 583 [2005]). If, upon remittal, the court determines that it does retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the custody issue, it may exercise that jurisdiction or it may decline to do so if it finds, after considering the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 76-f (2) (a)-(h) and allowing the parties to be heard, that New York is an inconvenient forum (see Matter of Recard v Polite, 21 AD3d 379, 380 [2005]; Matter of Rey v Spinetta, 8 AD3d 393, 394 [2004]).

The mother’s remaining contention is without merit. Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

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

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kfings County (Hepner, J.), dated December 3, 2008, which, inter alia, dismissed her petition to modify a prior order of the same court dated March 8, 2007, awarding the father sole custody of the parties’ child, so as to award her sole custody of the child, and dismissed her separate petition to modify the prior custody order so as to award the parties joint custody of the child.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provisions thereof dismissing the petition to modify the order dated March 8, 2007, so as to award her sole custody of the child, and dismissing the separate petition to modify the order dated March 8, 2007, so as to award the parties joint custody of the child; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, those petitions are reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

As the initial child custody determination in this case was made by the Family Court, Kings County, the court erred in [768]*768summarily dismissing, on jurisdictional grounds, the mother’s petitions to modify a prior order of custody. Instead, the court should have determined whether it retained exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the custody issue pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a (1) (see Matter of Greenidge v Greenidge, 16 AD3d 583 [2005]). If, upon remittal, the court determines that it does retain exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the custody issue, it may exercise that jurisdiction or it may decline to do so if it finds, after considering the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 76-f (2) (a)-(h) and allowing the parties to be heard, that New York is an inconvenient forum (see Matter of Recard v Polite, 21 AD3d 379, 380 [2005]; Matter of Rey v Spinetta, 8 AD3d 393, 394 [2004]).

The mother’s remaining contention is without merit. Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 767, 895 N.Y.S.2d 732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elbakri-v-farag-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack