Matter of Tamari E. v. Auther L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Tamari E. v. Auther L.

126 A.D.3d 697, 2 N.Y.S.3d 369

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

DecidedMarch 4, 2015

Docket2013-06939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 697 (Matter of Tamari E. v. Auther L.) 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

Matter of Tamari E. v. Auther L., 126 A.D.3d 697, 2 N.Y.S.3d 369 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County (Anthony Cannataro, J.), both dated May 22, 2013. The first order, insofar as appealed from, granted the mother’s motion to dismiss the father’s petitions alleging a violation of an existing order of custody and visitation with respect to the subject child Jaydmrie. The second order dismissed the father’s petition for joint legal custody and visitation with respect to the child Janelle.

Ordered that the orders dated May 22, 2013, are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court correctly determined that it lacked exclusive continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a (1) with respect to the child Jaydmrie, even though the father lived in New York, because the child had not maintained a significant connection with New York, and substantial evidence was no longer available in New York concerning Jaydmrie’s “care, protection, training, and personal relationships” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-a [1] [a]; see Matter of Ramirez v Sygutowska, 91 AD3d 787, 787 [2012]). Accordingly, the Family Court did not err in granting that branch of the mother’s motion which was to dismiss the father’s petitions alleging a violation of an existing order of custody and visitation with respect to Jaydmrie (see Matter of Ramirez v Sygutowska, 91 AD3d at 787).

The Family Court also correctly dismissed the father’s petition for joint legal custody and visitation with respect to the child Janelle. New York State is not, and never was, Janelle’s “home state” (Domestic Relations Law § 76 [1]; see Matter of Agueda v Rodriguez, 103 AD3d 716, 717 [2013]).

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or have been rendered academic in light of our determination.

Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Hall and Maltese, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals from two orders of the Family Court, Kings County (Anthony Cannataro, J.), both dated May 22, 2013. The first order, insofar as appealed from, granted the mother’s motion to dismiss the father’s petitions alleging a violation of an existing order of custody and visitation with respect to the subject child Jaydmrie. The second order dismissed the father’s petition for joint legal custody and visitation with respect to the child Janelle.

Ordered that the orders dated May 22, 2013, are affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court correctly determined that it lacked exclusive continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a (1) with respect to the child Jaydmrie, even though the father lived in New York, because the child had not maintained a significant connection with New York, and substantial evidence was no longer available in New York concerning Jaydmrie’s “care, protection, training, and personal relationships” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-a [1] [a]; see Matter of Ramirez v Sygutowska, 91 AD3d 787, 787 [2012]). Accordingly, the Family Court did not err in granting that branch of the mother’s motion which was to dismiss the father’s petitions alleging a violation of an existing order of custody and visitation with respect to Jaydmrie (see Matter of Ramirez v Sygutowska, 91 AD3d at 787).

The Family Court also correctly dismissed the father’s petition for joint legal custody and visitation with respect to the child Janelle. New York State is not, and never was, Janelle’s “home state” (Domestic Relations Law § 76 [1]; see Matter of Agueda v Rodriguez, 103 AD3d 716, 717 [2013]).

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or have been rendered academic in light of our determination.

Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Hall and Maltese, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 697, 2 N.Y.S.3d 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-tamari-e-v-auther-l-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack