Kamal v. Kamal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kamal v. Kamal

193 A.D.2d 1136, 600 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5791

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

DecidedMay 28, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 1136 (Kamal v. Kamal) 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

Kamal v. Kamal, 193 A.D.2d 1136, 600 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to defendant in accordance with the following Memorandum: Because plaintiff improperly removed the children from defendant’s physical custody while she was residing in Florida, Supreme Court was correct in refusing to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs request to modify the parties’ foreign custody decree (Domestic Relations Law § 75-i; Willoughby v Willoughby, 137 AD2d 682). Plaintiffs allegations fail to establish that Supreme Court was "required in the interest of the child” to accept jurisdiction (Domestic Relations Law § 75-i [2]). Supreme Court, having declined to exercise jurisdiction, erred in adjudicating any issues beyond enforcement of the Indiana decree. Consequently, we modify the order by vacating the second, third, fourth and sixth ordering paragraphs. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J.—Custody.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed with costs to defendant in accordance with the following Memorandum: Because plaintiff improperly removed the children from defendant’s physical custody while she was residing in Florida, Supreme Court was correct in refusing to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs request to modify the parties’ foreign custody decree (Domestic Relations Law § 75-i; Willoughby v Willoughby, 137 AD2d 682). Plaintiffs allegations fail to establish that Supreme Court was "required in the interest of the child” to accept jurisdiction (Domestic Relations Law § 75-i [2]). Supreme Court, having declined to exercise jurisdiction, erred in adjudicating any issues beyond enforcement of the Indiana decree. Consequently, we modify the order by vacating the second, third, fourth and sixth ordering paragraphs. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J.—Custody.) Present—Pine, J. P., Balio, Lawton, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 1136, 600 N.Y.S.2d 662, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kamal-v-kamal-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack