Vikram J. v. Anupama S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vikram J. v. Anupama S.

123 A.D.3d 625, 999 N.Y.S.2d 411

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2014

Docket13835

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 625 (Vikram J. v. Anupama S.) 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

Vikram J. v. Anupama S., 123 A.D.3d 625, 999 N.Y.S.2d 411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about June 6, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, directed respondent to appear in New York to litigate custody of the parties’ child, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the order vacated to that extent.

Respondent’s actual notice of the custody proceedings is insufficient to subject her to the court’s jurisdiction (see Frankel v Schilling, 149 AD2d 657 [2d Dept 1989]). She was not properly served with process. The Central Authority of India, where respondent resides, did not send a certificate of service to petitioner, as required by article 15 of the Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (20 UST 361, TIAS No. 6638 [1965]). Nor has a showing been made that the Central Authority actually transmitted the documents to respondent or that a period of not less than six months had elapsed after the date of petitioner’s transmission of the documents to the Central Authority.

*626 We note that the service attempted by petitioner’s friend was ineffective. As India has objected to article 10 of the Convention, service is required to be effected pursuant to article 5, i.e. either by or at the behest of the Central Authority (see Wood v Wood, 231 AD2d 713 [2d Dept 1996], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 89 NY2d 1073 [1997]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Gloria Sosa-Lintner, J.), entered on or about June 6, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from, directed respondent to appear in New York to litigate custody of the parties’ child, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the order vacated to that extent.

Respondent’s actual notice of the custody proceedings is insufficient to subject her to the court’s jurisdiction (see Frankel v Schilling, 149 AD2d 657 [2d Dept 1989]). She was not properly served with process. The Central Authority of India, where respondent resides, did not send a certificate of service to petitioner, as required by article 15 of the Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (20 UST 361, TIAS No. 6638 [1965]). Nor has a showing been made that the Central Authority actually transmitted the documents to respondent or that a period of not less than six months had elapsed after the date of petitioner’s transmission of the documents to the Central Authority.

*626 We note that the service attempted by petitioner’s friend was ineffective. As India has objected to article 10 of the Convention, service is required to be effected pursuant to article 5, i.e. either by or at the behest of the Central Authority (see Wood v Wood, 231 AD2d 713 [2d Dept 1996], lv dismissed in part, denied in part 89 NY2d 1073 [1997]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 625, 999 N.Y.S.2d 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vikram-j-v-anupama-s-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack