You are here: / / Prior Ties to New York Sufficient to Justify Jurisdiction of New York Courts...
,

Prior Ties to New York Sufficient to Justify Jurisdiction of New York Courts over Custody Proceedings Brought by the Child’s Grandmother Two Months After the Child and Mother Moved to Florida

The Second Department determined New York did not have jurisdiction over the custody matter by virtue of Domestic Relations Law 76 (1)(a) but did have jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law 76 (1)(b) ( Unified Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act [UCCJEA]).  Respondent mother had moved from New York to Florida with the child two months before the custody proceedings were commenced by petitioner, the child's grandmother (who lives in New York).  The mother argued the New York courts did not have jurisdiction:

UCCJEA provides the jurisdictional grounds for a court of this state to hear an initial custody dispute, including when “this state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state” (Domestic Relations Law § 76 [1] [a]…).

It is not disputed that New York was the home state of the child within six months prior to the time that petitioner commenced this proceeding. Because the child moved to Florida approximately two months prior to the commencement of the proceeding, the question presented is whether Family Court properly concluded that petitioner was a “person acting as a parent” for the purposes of the UCCJEA. A “person acting as a parent” is one who “(a) has physical custody of the child or has had physical custody for a period of six consecutive months . . . within one year immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding; and (b) has been awarded legal custody by a court or claims a right to legal custody under the law of this state” (Domestic Relations Law § 75-a [13]). …[B]ecause petitioner neither claims a right to legal custody nor has been awarded legal custody of the child, Family Court erred when it determined that petitioner was a “person acting as a parent” pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76 (1) (a).

…Having found that petitioner was not a “person acting as a parent,” it follows that, at the time this proceeding was commenced, the child, who had been living in Florida for fewer than six months, did not have a home state for purposes of the UCCJEA … . In such a case, a New York court may exercise jurisdiction if “(i) the child [and the parent] . . . have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence; and (ii) substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships” (Domestic Relations Law § 76 [1] [b]).

* * * … [W]e find that the record supports a finding that, at the time that the petition was filed, the child and respondent had a significant connection with New York and that “substantial evidence regarding her present and future welfare” existed in New York … . Accordingly, we find that Family Court had subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Matter of Breselor v Arciniega, 2014 NY Slip Op 09084, 3rd Dept 12-31-14


You might also like
DEFENDANT PRESENTED SUFFICIENT SPECIFIC FACTS TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT; A HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD (SECOND DEPT). ​
LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WHICH DID NOT COMPLY WITH STATUTORY PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT CANNOT BRING A COURT ACTION.
FATHER WHO WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE HOME AFTER CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS HAD A RIGHT TO AN EXPEDITED HEARING PURSUANT TO FAMILY COURT ACT 1028, BECAUSE THE ISSUE IS IMPORTANT AND LIKELY TO RECUR THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE WAS NOT APPLIED TO PRECLUDE APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS MOVED TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTIFF, AN ATTORNEY AND PHYSICIAN REPRESENTING HIMSELF IN THIS FRAUD AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION, ARGUING PLAINTIFF MAY BE CALLED AS A WITNESS; THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT SPECIFY HOW PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY WOULD BE NECESSARY TO THE DEFENSE; THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, A HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD TO DETERMINE IF THE BANK HAD PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER A DEFENDANT, THE BANK ESTABLISHED STANDING (NOTE AFFIXED TO THE COMPLAINT), THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1303 AND 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
COPY OF POSTNUPTIAL AGREEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER THE BEST EVIDENCE RULE; JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S TESTIMONY AND ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE IMPROPERLY CUT OFF, NEW HEARING ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
COURT’S ERRORS IN DEALING WITH NOTES FROM THE JURY, INCLUDING SUBSTITUTING THE WORD ‘INITIALLY’ FOR ‘INTENTIONALLY,’ REQUIRED REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Supervision of Student Could Not Have Prevented Injury