Randall v. Randall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Randall v. Randall

305 A.D.2d 512, 759 N.Y.S.2d 537

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

DecidedMay 12, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 305 A.D.2d 512 (Randall v. Randall) 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

Randall v. Randall, 305 A.D.2d 512, 759 N.Y.S.2d 537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), entered August 23, 2002, which granted the father’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 5-A.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The parties’ son, Darley Talbot Randall III, was born on [513]*513September 9, 1999, in the State of New York. The parties lived in New York until November 17, 1999, when they moved to Costa Rica. With the exception of a one-month sojourn to Connecticut in October 2000, the family resided continuously in Costa Rica. The mother left Costa Rica with the child on February 20, 2002, and returned to New York. Although the father commenced an action in Costa Rica seeking custody of the child before the commencement of this proceeding, there are no orders from that forum to date.

Domestic Relations Law § 75-d, as amended effective April 28, 2002, bars the courts of New York from exercising jurisdiction over this matter. Domestic Relations Law § 75-d provides that “[a] court of this state shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for the purpose of applying this title and title two of this article.” New York was not the child’s “home state” since he lived abroad within six months before the commencement of this proceeding (Warshawsky v Warshawsky, 226 AD2d 708, 709 [1996]).

Furthermore, New York is clearly a forum non conveniens (see Domestic Relations Law § 75-h). The child has resided outside New York virtually from birth to the present time, the parties’ home is in Costa Rica, and the parties have applied for permanent residency in Costa Rica. All the relevant evidence required to resolve this dispute, including the child’s doctors and witnesses to the alleged abuse, is located in Costa Rica. There is a custody and divorce action pending in Costa Rica. Thus, Costa Rica has the most significant contacts with the parties and, consequently, jurisdiction is properly placed before that forum.

Moreover, the mother’s unsubstantiated allegations of abuse are insufficient to require New York to invoke its emergency jurisdiction (see Tenenbaum v Sprecher, 133 AD2d 371 [1987]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., H. Miller, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

—In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), entered August 23, 2002, which granted the father’s motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 5-A.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The parties’ son, Darley Talbot Randall III, was born on [513]*513September 9, 1999, in the State of New York. The parties lived in New York until November 17, 1999, when they moved to Costa Rica. With the exception of a one-month sojourn to Connecticut in October 2000, the family resided continuously in Costa Rica. The mother left Costa Rica with the child on February 20, 2002, and returned to New York. Although the father commenced an action in Costa Rica seeking custody of the child before the commencement of this proceeding, there are no orders from that forum to date.

Domestic Relations Law § 75-d, as amended effective April 28, 2002, bars the courts of New York from exercising jurisdiction over this matter. Domestic Relations Law § 75-d provides that “[a] court of this state shall treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for the purpose of applying this title and title two of this article.” New York was not the child’s “home state” since he lived abroad within six months before the commencement of this proceeding (Warshawsky v Warshawsky, 226 AD2d 708, 709 [1996]).

Furthermore, New York is clearly a forum non conveniens (see Domestic Relations Law § 75-h). The child has resided outside New York virtually from birth to the present time, the parties’ home is in Costa Rica, and the parties have applied for permanent residency in Costa Rica. All the relevant evidence required to resolve this dispute, including the child’s doctors and witnesses to the alleged abuse, is located in Costa Rica. There is a custody and divorce action pending in Costa Rica. Thus, Costa Rica has the most significant contacts with the parties and, consequently, jurisdiction is properly placed before that forum.

Moreover, the mother’s unsubstantiated allegations of abuse are insufficient to require New York to invoke its emergency jurisdiction (see Tenenbaum v Sprecher, 133 AD2d 371 [1987]).

The mother’s remaining contentions are without merit. Smith, J.P., H. Miller, Cozier and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 512, 759 N.Y.S.2d 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randall-v-randall-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack