Lushbough v. Lushbough

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lushbough v. Lushbough

227 A.D.2d 110, 641 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4739

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

DecidedMay 2, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 227 A.D.2d 110 (Lushbough v. Lushbough) 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

Lushbough v. Lushbough, 227 A.D.2d 110, 641 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4739 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered January 31, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendant’s brief, denied defendant’s cross motion for temporary custody of the parties’ children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We affirm on the ground that New York is an inconvenient forum, and therefore decline to exercise its jurisdiction (Domestic Relations Law § 75-h; see, Hellinger v Hellinger, 217 AD2d 490). The children have now been living with plaintiff in California for more than 21/a years, where they attend school and have almost all of their other connections (Domestic Relations Law § 75-h [3]). Furthermore, defendant, who made no effort to assert his parental rights until some two years after temporary custody was awarded to plaintiff, has initiated legal proceedings in California, so he will not be heard to claim that that State is an inconvenient forum. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered January 31, 1995, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by defendant’s brief, denied defendant’s cross motion for temporary custody of the parties’ children, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We affirm on the ground that New York is an inconvenient forum, and therefore decline to exercise its jurisdiction (Domestic Relations Law § 75-h; see, Hellinger v Hellinger, 217 AD2d 490). The children have now been living with plaintiff in California for more than 21/a years, where they attend school and have almost all of their other connections (Domestic Relations Law § 75-h [3]). Furthermore, defendant, who made no effort to assert his parental rights until some two years after temporary custody was awarded to plaintiff, has initiated legal proceedings in California, so he will not be heard to claim that that State is an inconvenient forum. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 110, 641 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lushbough-v-lushbough-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack