Hashem v. Hashem

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hashem v. Hashem

163 A.D.2d 836, 558 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9505

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 163 A.D.2d 836 (Hashem v. Hashem) 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

Hashem v. Hashem, 163 A.D.2d 836, 558 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9505 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly dismissed the mother’s petition under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act for modification of a Pennsylvania custody decree. New York is preempted by the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act from exercising jurisdiction because the custody proceeding is pending in Pennsylvania and the father continues to reside there. The Pennsylvania court specifically retained jurisdiction in the initial custody order and has not declined to exercise its jurisdiction in the present matter (see, 28 USC § 1738A [a], [d], [f], [g]; Clark v Boreanaz, 159 AD2d 981; Matter of Tenenbaum v Sprecher, 133 AD2d 371, 372-373; cf., Matter of Heitler v Hoosin, 143 AD2d 1018, 1019-1020; see also, Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law § 75-o, at 349-350). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Sedita, J.—custody.) Present— Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Family Court properly dismissed the mother’s petition under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act for modification of a Pennsylvania custody decree. New York is preempted by the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act from exercising jurisdiction because the custody proceeding is pending in Pennsylvania and the father continues to reside there. The Pennsylvania court specifically retained jurisdiction in the initial custody order and has not declined to exercise its jurisdiction in the present matter (see, 28 USC § 1738A [a], [d], [f], [g]; Clark v Boreanaz, 159 AD2d 981; Matter of Tenenbaum v Sprecher, 133 AD2d 371, 372-373; cf., Matter of Heitler v Hoosin, 143 AD2d 1018, 1019-1020; see also, Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law § 75-o, at 349-350). (Appeal from order of Erie County Family Court, Sedita, J.—custody.) Present— Boomer, J. P., Green, Pine, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 A.D.2d 836, 558 N.Y.S.2d 370, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9505, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hashem-v-hashem-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack