You are here: / / Child’s Move To Connecticut Did Not Strip New York of Jurisdiction...
,

Child’s Move To Connecticut Did Not Strip New York of Jurisdiction and Did Not Justify Finding that New York Was an Inconvenient Forum

The Second Department determined Family Court erred when it determined the child’s moving to Connecticut removed the child from its jurisdiction.  The court further noted that Family Court erred when it state that, even if it had jurisdiction, it would decline to exercise it.  The Second Department determined the analysis of the statutory factors favored New York’s continued jurisdiction:

Pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, codified in Article 5-A of the Domestic Relations Law (hereinafter UCCJEA), a court in this State that has made an initial custody determination has exclusive continuing jurisdiction over that determination until it finds, as is relevant here, that the child does not have a “significant connection” with New York, and “substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships” (Domestic Relations Law § 76-a[1][a]…). Here, while the subject child moved to Connecticut to live with her father approximately eight months before the mother petitioned to modify a prior order of custody so as to award her sole custody of the child, the record reveals that the child retained a significant connection to New York, including attending school and having frequent visitation with her mother in New York, and that substantial evidence was available in this state concerning her present and future welfare … . The child’s significant connection to Connecticut does not diminish her significant connection to New York as well … .

A court of this State that has jurisdiction under the UCCJEA may decline to exercise it if it finds that New York is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-f[1]…). However, the court is required to consider the factors set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 76-f(2)(a)-(h) before determining that New York is an inconvenient forum … . The Family Court failed to do so here. However, we need not remit the matter to the Family Court, Queens County, for consideration of the statutory factors because the record is sufficient for this Court to consider and evaluate those factors … . Consideration of the relevant statutory factors, including the nature and location of relevant evidence, and the Family Court’s greater familiarity than the courts of Connecticut with the facts and issues underlying the mother’s modification petition, supports a conclusion that New York is not an inconvenient forum … . Matter of Mojica v Denson, 2014 NY Slip Op 05882, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

You might also like
Landlord Failed to Demonstrate Assault on Tenant Was Not Foreseeable—Landlord’s Summary Judgment Motion Properly Denied
EVIDENCE OF KNOWING POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT AN INDICTMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED.
PURSUANT TO THE MARIHUANA REGULATION AND TAXATION ACT (MRTA) (1) DEFENDANT’S MARIHUANA CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY VACATED (2) ANOTHER CONVICTION WAS PROPERLY SUBSTITUTED FOR THE VACATED CONVICTION (3) BUT COUNTY COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY FAILING TO CONSIDER WHETHER SUBSTITUTING ANOTHER CONVICTION SERVED THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS PLEA WAS MADE PURSUANT TO CPL 220.60, NOT CPL 330.30; THEREFORE THE “OUTSIDE THE RECORD” EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192(2) (DWI) IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192(2-A) (AGGRAVATED DWI) (SECOND DEPT). ​
THERE ARE SUBSTANTIVE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PLAINTIFF EMPLOYER AND DEFENDANT EMPLOYEE RE: THE SALE OF DEFENDANT’S TAX PREPARATION BUSINESS TO PLAINTIFF AND WHETHER DEFENDANT SOLD HER CLIENT LIST TO PLAINTIFF; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENFORCING THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A HARD HAT THAT COULD BE WORN WITH A WELDING SHIELD WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).
Show-Up Identification Should Have Been Suppressed—Defendant Was Only Person In the Street, Was In Hand-Cuffs, and Was Surrounded by Police

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Highest and Best Use is Measure of Damages—Unconsummated Purchase Contract... Law of Contracts, Not Law of Torts, Applied to Conflict of Laws Analysis Concerning...