You are here: / / IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY MOTHER, A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO...
,

IN THIS CUSTODY PROCEEDING BROUGHT BY MOTHER, A HEARING IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER NEW YORK HAD JURISDICTION AFTER THE CHILD SPENT FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS WITH FATHER IN NORTH CAROLINA (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Family Court, found that a hearing is necessary in this custody proceeding to determine whether New York had jurisdiction after the child spent four or five months in North Carolina:

Petitioner mother appeals from an order that dismissed for lack of jurisdiction her petition for custody of the subject child. Domestic Relations Law § 76 (1) (a) provides in relevant part that a New York court has jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination if New York “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 . . . continues to live in this state . . . .” ” Home state’ means the state in which a child lived with a parent . . . for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding” (§ 75-a [7]). A period of temporary absence during the six-month time frame is considered part of the time period to establish home-state residency … . Moreover, if “a parent wrongfully removes a child from a state, the time following the removal is considered a temporary absence” … .

We conclude that Family Court erred in dismissing the petition based on lack of jurisdiction without holding a hearing. Here, there are disputed issues of fact whether the child’s four- or five-month stay in North Carolina constituted a temporary absence from New York State in light of allegations that respondent father withheld the child from the mother for purposes of establishing a “home state” in North Carolina … and whether the mother’s absence from New York State interrupted the child’s six-month pre-petition residency period required by Domestic Relations Law § 76 (1) (a) … . Matter of Dean v Sherron, 2018 NY Slip Op 08807, Fourth Dept 12-21-18

 

You might also like
Inadequate Supervision and Unsanitary Living Conditions Warranted a Neglect Finding
Competency of Evidence Before Grand Jury Not Reviewable On Appeal Where Defendant Convicted Upon Legally Sufficient Trial Evidence
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS DENIED PROPER MEDICAL CARE IN THE NIAGARA COUNTY JAIL AND SUED THE JAIL DOCTOR, THE COUNTY AND THE SHERIFF; THE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING THE VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL RIGHTS PURSUANT TO 42 USC 1983 SURVIVED MOTIONS TO DISMISS; OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION WERE DEEMED TIME-BARRED; ACTIONS ALLEGING THE COUNTY WAS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OF THE SHERIFF WERE DISMISSED; THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE COUNTY AND SHERIFF WERE NOT DEEMED “UNITED IN INTEREST” (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THE HEARSAY ALLEGATIONS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH TWO DIFFERENT RESIDENCES; THE TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE APPLICATION DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH ONE OF THE TWO RESIDENCES, I.E., THERE WERE NO DETAILS DESCRIBING THE NARCOTICS THE INFORMANT OBSERVED IN THE RESIDENCE AND NO INDICATION WHEN THE OBSERVATON WAS MADE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PROCEDURE SUNY BUFFALO USED TO QUESTION PARTIES AND WITNESSES ABOUT ALLEGATIONS OF PETITONER-STUDENT’S SEXUAL MISCONDUCT (SUBMITTED WRITTEN QUESTIONS) VIOLATED THE SCHOOL’S TITLE IX POLICY (LIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION); THE SCHOOL’S DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED AND THE RECORD WAS EXPUNGED (FOURTH DEPT).
THIS WAS NOT A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THE ACCUSATORY INSTRUMENTS, AS OPPOSED TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE ALONE, CAN BE USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FLORIDA CONVICTION ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO BE SENTENCED AS A SECOND CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT FELONY OFFENDER; THE FLORIDA STATUTE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEEMED A PREDICATE FELONY (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE RECKLESS DISREGARD STANDARD APPLIED TO DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER WHO WAS RESPONDING TO AN EMERGENCY WHEN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED, THE OFFICER TOOK PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES AND THEREFORE HIS CONDUCT DID NOT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF RECKLESS DISREGARD OF THE SAFETY OF OTHERS (FOURTH DEPT).
SOPHISTICATED INTERMEDIARY DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SILICA INHALATION FAILURE TO WARN PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO WARN PLAINTIFF EMPLOYEE, DESPITE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGER ON THE PART OF PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER (FOURTH 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy