Hansen v. Bergin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hansen v. Bergin

1 A.D.2d 968, 767 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1 A.D.3d 968, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12215

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

DecidedNovember 21, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 968 (Hansen v. Bergin) 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

Hansen v. Bergin, 1 A.D.2d 968, 767 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1 A.D.3d 968, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Onondaga County (Rossi, J.), entered November 13, 2001, which dismissed the petition seeking modification and enforcement of the custody and visitation provisions of a prior order.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly dismissed the petition seeking modification and enforcement of the custody and visitation provisions of a prior order. Approximately 10 months prior to the commencement of this proceeding, Family Court, Broome County, dismissed a proceeding seeking identical relief on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction over the proceeding under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act ([UCCJA] Domestic Relations Law former art 5-A). That ruling on the issue of jurisdiction “remains the law of the case, and it may not be contravened by a court of coordinate jurisdiction. . . . Having failed to take an appeal from the ruling, [petitioner] may not seek to directly overturn it” (Grossman v Meller, 213 AD2d 221, 224 [1995]). Further, there is no question that South Carolina is the child’s home state for UCCJA purposes (see former § 75-d [1] [a]), and the allegations of the petition are insufficient to support the court’s exercise of jurisdiction under former section 75-d (1) (b) (cf. Vernon v Vernon, 100 NY2d 960 [2003]). Present — Green, J.P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Onondaga County (Rossi, J.), entered November 13, 2001, which dismissed the petition seeking modification and enforcement of the custody and visitation provisions of a prior order.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Family Court properly dismissed the petition seeking modification and enforcement of the custody and visitation provisions of a prior order. Approximately 10 months prior to the commencement of this proceeding, Family Court, Broome County, dismissed a proceeding seeking identical relief on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction over the proceeding under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act ([UCCJA] Domestic Relations Law former art 5-A). That ruling on the issue of jurisdiction “remains the law of the case, and it may not be contravened by a court of coordinate jurisdiction. . . . Having failed to take an appeal from the ruling, [petitioner] may not seek to directly overturn it” (Grossman v Meller, 213 AD2d 221, 224 [1995]). Further, there is no question that South Carolina is the child’s home state for UCCJA purposes (see former § 75-d [1] [a]), and the allegations of the petition are insufficient to support the court’s exercise of jurisdiction under former section 75-d (1) (b) (cf. Vernon v Vernon, 100 NY2d 960 [2003]). Present — Green, J.P., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 968, 767 N.Y.S.2d 338, 1 A.D.3d 968, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hansen-v-bergin-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack