Toale v. Caravella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Toale v. Caravella

86 A.D.3d 576, 926 N.Y.2d 832

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 12, 2011·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion, after reviewing the appropriate factors, in declining to exercise jurisdiction of this matter because the State of California is a more appropriate and convenient forum (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-f; Matter of Desroches v Desroches, 70 AD3d 686 [2010]; Matter of Erlec v Johnson, 58 AD3d 730, 731 [2009]; Matter of Hall v Hall, 44 AD3d 771 [2007]; Clark v Clark, 21 AD3d 1326, 1327-1328 [2005]; Matter of Koch v Andres, 295 AD2d 609, 610 [2002]). Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

Contrary to the mother’s contention, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion, after reviewing the appropriate factors, in declining to exercise jurisdiction of this matter because the State of California is a more appropriate and convenient forum (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-f; Matter of Desroches v Desroches, 70 AD3d 686 [2010]; Matter of Erlec v Johnson, 58 AD3d 730, 731 [2009]; Matter of Hall v Hall, 44 AD3d 771 [2007]; Clark v Clark, 21 AD3d 1326, 1327-1328 [2005]; Matter of Koch v Andres, 295 AD2d 609, 610 [2002]). Angiolillo, J.P., Dickerson, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.

Toale v. Caravella, 86 A.D.3d 576, 926 N.Y.2d 832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

86 A.D.3d 576 (Toale v. Caravella) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related