Grant v. Finney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grant v. Finney

45 A.D.3d 1216, 845 N.Y.S.2d 767

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

DecidedNovember 29, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A.D.3d 1216 (Grant v. Finney) 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

Grant v. Finney, 45 A.D.3d 1216, 845 N.Y.S.2d 767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Kane, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court Chemung County (Brockway, J.), entered December 14, 2006, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for visitation with the parties’ child.

[1217]*1217In 2004, respondent moved to Maryland with the parties’ child. In 2006, petitioner commenced this proceeding to obtain visitation with the child. When neither party appeared at a scheduled hearing, Family Court dismissed the petition due to lack of jurisdiction. On petitioner’s appeal, we affirm.

Contrary to petitioner’s argument that he was improperly denied his right to counsel, as a petitioner in a visitation proceeding he did not have a statutory right to counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [iii]; Matter of Edwards v Cade, 33 AD3d 1087, 1088 [2006]). Furthermore, as the child has resided in Maryland since 2004, Maryland was the child’s home state when the petition was filed and Family Court properly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction (see Domestic Relations Law § 76 [1] [a]; Matter of Ciccone v Pugh, 42 AD3d 767, 769 [2007]; Matter of Ollivierra v Fateh, 29 AD3d 1002, 1003 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 711 [2006]). Petitioner’s remaining contention lacks merit.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Kane, J.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court Chemung County (Brockway, J.), entered December 14, 2006, which dismissed petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Ct Act article 6, for visitation with the parties’ child.

[1217]*1217In 2004, respondent moved to Maryland with the parties’ child. In 2006, petitioner commenced this proceeding to obtain visitation with the child. When neither party appeared at a scheduled hearing, Family Court dismissed the petition due to lack of jurisdiction. On petitioner’s appeal, we affirm.

Contrary to petitioner’s argument that he was improperly denied his right to counsel, as a petitioner in a visitation proceeding he did not have a statutory right to counsel (see Family Ct Act § 262 [a] [iii]; Matter of Edwards v Cade, 33 AD3d 1087, 1088 [2006]). Furthermore, as the child has resided in Maryland since 2004, Maryland was the child’s home state when the petition was filed and Family Court properly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction (see Domestic Relations Law § 76 [1] [a]; Matter of Ciccone v Pugh, 42 AD3d 767, 769 [2007]; Matter of Ollivierra v Fateh, 29 AD3d 1002, 1003 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 711 [2006]). Petitioner’s remaining contention lacks merit.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 A.D.3d 1216, 845 N.Y.S.2d 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-finney-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack