Richard v. Clarke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richard v. Clarke

33 A.D.2d 759, 305 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2584

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 759 (Richard v. Clarke) 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

Richard v. Clarke, 33 A.D.2d 759, 305 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2584 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order appealed from, entered September 25, 1969, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the petition dismissed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent-appellant. The Special Term was without jurisdiction to direct the nondomiciliary respondent-appellat stepfather to make available for visitation the petitioner father’s child. The child is not within this State. Personal jurisdiction was not obtained over the respondent mother, a foreign domiciliary and the infant’s sole legal custodian. A marital res is not extant in this jurisdiction nor does there exist a New York decree affecting a marital res. Cases such as Matter of Kades (23 Misc 2d 222 [McGivern, J.], affd. 10 A D 2d 919) and May v. May (233 App. Div. 519, 520) are inapplicable. While in those cases the infant was outside the jurisdiction, there was personal jurisdiction in the proceeding over both parents by virtue of domicile. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, McGivern, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.

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

Order appealed from, entered September 25, 1969, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the petition dismissed, with $50 costs and disbursements to respondent-appellant. The Special Term was without jurisdiction to direct the nondomiciliary respondent-appellat stepfather to make available for visitation the petitioner father’s child. The child is not within this State. Personal jurisdiction was not obtained over the respondent mother, a foreign domiciliary and the infant’s sole legal custodian. A marital res is not extant in this jurisdiction nor does there exist a New York decree affecting a marital res. Cases such as Matter of Kades (23 Misc 2d 222 [McGivern, J.], affd. 10 A D 2d 919) and May v. May (233 App. Div. 519, 520) are inapplicable. While in those cases the infant was outside the jurisdiction, there was personal jurisdiction in the proceeding over both parents by virtue of domicile. Concur — Capozzoli, J. P., Tilzer, McGivern, Markewich and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 759, 305 N.Y.S.2d 1003, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-v-clarke-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack