Hagzan-Pfaff v. Braisted

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hagzan-Pfaff v. Braisted

226 A.D.2d 724, 642 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4612

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

DecidedApril 29, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 724 (Hagzan-Pfaff v. Braisted) 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

Hagzan-Pfaff v. Braisted, 226 A.D.2d 724, 642 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4612 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In a custody proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 75-a, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kent, J.), dated October 30, 1995, which, inter alia, granted the motion of Clifford Braisted and Eileen Leili to dismiss the petition.

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

The record indicates that the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, had already determined that it had jurisdiction to decide the instant custody issue. Further, there was no evidence that the Florida court intended to relinquish its jurisdiction (see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-g). Accordingly, the Family Court, Suffolk County, did not err by declining to [725]*725exercise jurisdiction to determine the custody issue (see, Vanneck v Vanneck, 49 NY2d 602, 610; see also, Marks v Marks, 218 AD2d 642; Matter of Plum v Plum, 216 AD2d 302).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

In a custody proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 75-a, the petitioners appeal from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kent, J.), dated October 30, 1995, which, inter alia, granted the motion of Clifford Braisted and Eileen Leili to dismiss the petition.

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

The record indicates that the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, had already determined that it had jurisdiction to decide the instant custody issue. Further, there was no evidence that the Florida court intended to relinquish its jurisdiction (see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-g). Accordingly, the Family Court, Suffolk County, did not err by declining to [725]*725exercise jurisdiction to determine the custody issue (see, Vanneck v Vanneck, 49 NY2d 602, 610; see also, Marks v Marks, 218 AD2d 642; Matter of Plum v Plum, 216 AD2d 302).

The petitioners’ remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 724, 642 N.Y.S.2d 530, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hagzan-pfaff-v-braisted-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack