Liza P. v. Kevin P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Liza P. v. Kevin P.

111 A.D.3d 517, 974 N.Y.S.2d 463

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.3d 517 (Liza P. v. Kevin P.) 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

Liza P. v. Kevin P., 111 A.D.3d 517, 974 N.Y.S.2d 463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

[518]*518Order, Family Court, Bronx County (James E. d’Auguste, J.), entered on or about February 29, 2012, which granted petitioner mother custody of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court properly determined that it had jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76 (1) (b). Florida could not have jurisdiction because, although it was the child’s home state at the time the proceeding commenced, neither the child nor either party resided there. Furthermore, the mother and child resided in New York and had a family network here, and substantial evidence was available in this state regarding the child’s care.

Although respondent father commenced a proceeding in Florida prior to the commencement of the New York proceeding, Family Court correctly found that Florida could not have jurisdiction in substantial conformity with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act because neither the child nor the parties were residing there (see Domestic Relations Law § 76 [1] [a]). In any event, having learned of the Florida proceeding, the court fulfilled its obligation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-e by attempting to communicate with the Florida court (see Vanneck v Vanneck, 49 NY2d 602, 610-611 [1980]; cf. Cynthia Marie S. v Allen Wayne L., 228 AD2d 249 [1st Dept 1996]).

We have considered the father’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

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

[518]*518Order, Family Court, Bronx County (James E. d’Auguste, J.), entered on or about February 29, 2012, which granted petitioner mother custody of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court properly determined that it had jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76 (1) (b). Florida could not have jurisdiction because, although it was the child’s home state at the time the proceeding commenced, neither the child nor either party resided there. Furthermore, the mother and child resided in New York and had a family network here, and substantial evidence was available in this state regarding the child’s care.

Although respondent father commenced a proceeding in Florida prior to the commencement of the New York proceeding, Family Court correctly found that Florida could not have jurisdiction in substantial conformity with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act because neither the child nor the parties were residing there (see Domestic Relations Law § 76 [1] [a]). In any event, having learned of the Florida proceeding, the court fulfilled its obligation pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-e by attempting to communicate with the Florida court (see Vanneck v Vanneck, 49 NY2d 602, 610-611 [1980]; cf. Cynthia Marie S. v Allen Wayne L., 228 AD2d 249 [1st Dept 1996]).

We have considered the father’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.3d 517, 974 N.Y.S.2d 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liza-p-v-kevin-p-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack