Nusrat C. v. Muhammad R.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nusrat C. v. Muhammad R.

67 A.D.3d 419, 886 N.Y.S.2d 881

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

DecidedNovember 5, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 67 A.D.3d 419 (Nusrat C. v. Muhammad R.) 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

Nusrat C. v. Muhammad R., 67 A.D.3d 419, 886 N.Y.S.2d 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Writ of habeas corpus, Family Court, Bronx County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2008, in a custody proceeding, which directed respondent to produce the parties’ child, and order, same court (Marian R. Shelton, J.), entered on or about December 27, 2007, which denied respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Subject matter jurisdiction exists under both (1) Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a), where, as here, even though the child lives abroad, both parents live here and are personally before the court (see People ex rel. Satti v Satti, 55 AD2d 149, 152-153 [1976], affd 43 NY2d 671 [1977]), and (2) Domestic Relations Law § 76 (1) (d), where, as here, the child’s state of residence lacks jurisdiction under Domestic Relations Law § 76 (1) (a)-(c). We have considered and rejected respondent’s other arguments, including that the proceeding should be dismissed on the ground that New York is an inconvenient forum (Domestic Relations Law § 76-f). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Friedman, Nardelli and Moskowitz, JJ.

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

Writ of habeas corpus, Family Court, Bronx County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered on or about August 8, 2008, in a custody proceeding, which directed respondent to produce the parties’ child, and order, same court (Marian R. Shelton, J.), entered on or about December 27, 2007, which denied respondent’s motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Subject matter jurisdiction exists under both (1) Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a), where, as here, even though the child lives abroad, both parents live here and are personally before the court (see People ex rel. Satti v Satti, 55 AD2d 149, 152-153 [1976], affd 43 NY2d 671 [1977]), and (2) Domestic Relations Law § 76 (1) (d), where, as here, the child’s state of residence lacks jurisdiction under Domestic Relations Law § 76 (1) (a)-(c). We have considered and rejected respondent’s other arguments, including that the proceeding should be dismissed on the ground that New York is an inconvenient forum (Domestic Relations Law § 76-f). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Friedman, Nardelli and Moskowitz, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.3d 419, 886 N.Y.S.2d 881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nusrat-c-v-muhammad-r-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack