This text of New York § 76-F (Inconvenient forum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
§ 76-f. Inconvenient forum.
1.A court of this state which has\njurisdiction under this article to make a child custody determination\nmay decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines\nthat it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a\ncourt of another state is a more appropriate forum. The issue of\ninconvenient forum may be raised upon motion of a party, the child or\nthe child's attorney, or upon the court's own motion, or request of\nanother court.\n 2. Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of\nthis state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of\nanother state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court\nshall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all\nrelevant factors, inc
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
§ 76-f. Inconvenient forum. 1. A court of this state which has\njurisdiction under this article to make a child custody determination\nmay decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines\nthat it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a\ncourt of another state is a more appropriate forum. The issue of\ninconvenient forum may be raised upon motion of a party, the child or\nthe child's attorney, or upon the court's own motion, or request of\nanother court.\n 2. Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of\nthis state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of\nanother state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court\nshall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all\nrelevant factors, including:\n (a) whether domestic violence or mistreatment or abuse of a child or\nsibling has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which\nstate could best protect the parties and the child;\n (b) the length of time the child has resided outside this state;\n (c) the distance between the court in this state and the court in the\nstate that would assume jurisdiction;\n (d) the relative financial circumstances of the parties;\n (e) any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume\njurisdiction;\n (f) the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the\npending litigation, including testimony of the child;\n (g) the ability of the court of each state to decide the issue\nexpeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and\n (h) the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and\nissues in the pending litigation.\n 3. If a court of this state determines that it is an inconvenient\nforum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum, it\nshall stay the proceedings upon condition that a child custody\nproceeding be promptly commenced in another designated state and may\nimpose any other condition the court considers just and proper.\n 4. A court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction\nunder this article if a child custody determination is incidental to an\naction for divorce or another proceeding while still retaining\njurisdiction over the divorce or other proceeding.\n