You are here: / / FAMILY COURT CAN EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER A NONRESIDENT PUTATIVE FATHER...
,

FAMILY COURT CAN EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER A NONRESIDENT PUTATIVE FATHER IN A PATERNITY ACTION AS LONG AS THE FACTS HAVE A CONNECTION WITH NEW YORK STATE; THE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined the paternity petition should not have been dismissed with prejudice because there are circumstances where the New York Family Court can obtain jurisdiction over an out-of-state respondent in the paternity action:

In a paternity proceeding, personal jurisdiction over a nonresident putative father may be established pursuant to Family Court Act § 580-201. Petitioner, however, admittedly failed to allege in her petition that respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with the mother in New York State at the time of conception, or that he had any other relevant ties to New York State, and no other grounds for jurisdiction apply (see Family Ct Act § 580-201 [6], [8]). Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court should have granted the motion on the ground that petitioner failed to state a cause of action predicated upon respondent’s sexual intercourse with petitioner in New York State … . Inasmuch as such a dismissal is not on the merits, however, we further conclude that the petition should be dismissed without prejudice … . Matter of Joyce M.M. v Robert J.G., 2020 NY Slip Op 05616, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

You might also like
NO DEMONSTRATION A PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF AN AMBIGUOUS CONTRACT WAS THE ONLY FAIR INTERPRETATION; THEREFORE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WERE PROPERLY DENIED.
ON THE PEOPLE’S APPEAL, THE TRIAL COURT’S VACATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE WAS REVERSED; THE NEW EVIDENCE INDICATED THAT, ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS NOT THE SHOOTER, DEFENDANT WAS AN ACCOMPLICE TO THE SHOOTER; AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT CAN ONLY CONSIDER THE TRIAL COURT’S GROUNDS FOR ITS RULINGS, OR RULINGS ADVERSE TO THE APPELLANT (FOURTH DEPT).
Landlord Failed to Eliminate Triable Issues of Fact Concerning Whether He Had Constructive Notice of the Presence of Lead Paint
SHERIFF IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF, THEREFORE, IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT OR THE COUNTY; RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY; SHERIFF CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE COMPLAINT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN.
“Labor or Services” Complaint Not Specific Enough to Trigger Specific-Answer Requirement Under CPLR 3016
Conflict of Interest Waived Where Respondent Knew of the Conflict and Participated in Prior Proceedings for Some Time
THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE DATE OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION IN THE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION DID NOT INVALIDATE IT (FOURTH DEPT).
CO-CONSPIRATOR EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE EXPLAINED (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

THE MUNICIPALITY DID NOT OWE A SPECIAL DUTY TO PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WHO... COMPLAINT SUING A RETAILER WHICH SOLD AMMUNITION TO A 20-YEAR-OLD WHO SHOT PLAINTIFF’S...