Salinardo v. Salinardo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salinardo v. Salinardo

193 A.D.2d 1119, 598 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5769

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

DecidedMay 28, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 1119 (Salinardo v. Salinardo) 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

Salinardo v. Salinardo, 193 A.D.2d 1119, 598 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5769 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to modify the custody provision in the parties’ divorce judgment. At the time the proceeding was commenced in 1992, the child’s home State was Ohio, where she had continuously lived with her mother since 1986 (see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-c [5]; § 75-d [1] [a]). Because the child had a home State other than New York for nearly six years, the court correctly concluded that it could not assume jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 75-d (1) (b) (see, Matter of Croskey v Taylor, 183 AD2d 680; Matter of Perri v Mariarossi, 172 AD2d 671, lv denied 79 NY2d 757). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J. —Custody.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Green, Lawton, Doerr and Boomer, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to modify the custody provision in the parties’ divorce judgment. At the time the proceeding was commenced in 1992, the child’s home State was Ohio, where she had continuously lived with her mother since 1986 (see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-c [5]; § 75-d [1] [a]). Because the child had a home State other than New York for nearly six years, the court correctly concluded that it could not assume jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 75-d (1) (b) (see, Matter of Croskey v Taylor, 183 AD2d 680; Matter of Perri v Mariarossi, 172 AD2d 671, lv denied 79 NY2d 757). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Gorski, J. —Custody.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Green, Lawton, Doerr and Boomer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 1119, 598 N.Y.S.2d 643, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salinardo-v-salinardo-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack