Renzulli v. McElrath

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Renzulli v. McElrath

286 A.D.2d 335, 728 N.Y.S.2d 783, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7852

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

DecidedAugust 6, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 286 A.D.2d 335 (Renzulli v. McElrath) 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

Renzulli v. McElrath, 286 A.D.2d 335, 728 N.Y.S.2d 783, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent, Terrence J. McElrath, a Judge of the Family Court, Richmond County, from exercising jurisdiction over a [336]*336child custody proceeding entitled Matter of Renzulli v Renzulli, pending in the Family Court, Richmond County, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated May 31, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant commenced a proceeding in the Supreme Court, Richmond County, pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent from exercising jurisdiction over a proceeding brought by her former husband to obtain custody of their two children. The appellant and her former husband were previously divorced by an amended supplemental judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated June 25, 1997. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, finding that the Family Court had jurisdiction over the custody proceeding. We agree.

While the amended supplemental judgment of divorce addressed issues such as child support and equitable distribution, it did not contain an express provision governing child custody or visitation. Furthermore, it did not contain any language retaining exclusive jurisdiction in the Supreme Court or concerning its future enforcement. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the Family Court had concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court over the issue of child custody (see, Family Ct Act §§ 651, 652; Metzger v Metzger, 133 AD2d 524; Matter of Michener v Metcalf, 99 AD2d 925; Matter of Merrill I.S. v Joel S., 92 Misc 2d 92).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent, Terrence J. McElrath, a Judge of the Family Court, Richmond County, from exercising jurisdiction over a [336]*336child custody proceeding entitled Matter of Renzulli v Renzulli, pending in the Family Court, Richmond County, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated May 31, 2000, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant commenced a proceeding in the Supreme Court, Richmond County, pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of prohibition to prohibit the respondent from exercising jurisdiction over a proceeding brought by her former husband to obtain custody of their two children. The appellant and her former husband were previously divorced by an amended supplemental judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated June 25, 1997. The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding, finding that the Family Court had jurisdiction over the custody proceeding. We agree.

While the amended supplemental judgment of divorce addressed issues such as child support and equitable distribution, it did not contain an express provision governing child custody or visitation. Furthermore, it did not contain any language retaining exclusive jurisdiction in the Supreme Court or concerning its future enforcement. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the Family Court had concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court over the issue of child custody (see, Family Ct Act §§ 651, 652; Metzger v Metzger, 133 AD2d 524; Matter of Michener v Metcalf, 99 AD2d 925; Matter of Merrill I.S. v Joel S., 92 Misc 2d 92).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., H. Miller, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D.2d 335, 728 N.Y.S.2d 783, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/renzulli-v-mcelrath-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack