You are here: / / FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELINQUISHED TEMPORARY EMERGENCY JURISDICTION...
,

FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RELINQUISHED TEMPORARY EMERGENCY JURISDICTION OVER THE NEGLECT PROCEEDING UPON LEARNING FATHER HAD COMMENCED A CUSTODY PROCEEDING IN TEXAS; THERE WAS NO ASSURANCE FROM THE TEXAS COURT RE: SAFEGUARDING THE CHILD (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court in this neglect proceeding, determined the judge should not have relinquished temporary emergency jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) when father commenced custody proceedings in Texas:

Family Court improperly relinquished emergency jurisdiction for three reasons. First, there is no evidence in this record, and Family Court’s order fails to state any basis for finding, that the Texas court had “home state” jurisdiction, since the child had not resided there for six months immediately preceding commencement of the father’s Texas custody proceeding (Domestic Relations Law §§ 75-a[7]; 76[1][a]). Second, the record and Family Court’s order are also devoid of any factual basis for finding that any of the alternative jurisdictional bases applied to Texas. There is no evidence that the child at that time had a “significant connection” with Texas or that “substantial evidence . . . concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships” was available in Texas (Domestic Relations Law § 76[1][b]). Finally, given the allegations in the neglect petition and the fact that Family Court had been informed … that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services would not investigate whether the father was a danger to the child because the mother and child resided in New York, Family Court should not have relinquished emergency jurisdiction “in the absence of any orders from the Texas court safeguarding the child[]” … .

Moreover, it is not clear whether New York might have had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination under Domestic Relations Law § 76(1)(b), given that the child had not lived in Texas for the preceding six months, had lived in New York with his mother when the father filed his Texas custody petition, and was receiving medical care, attending daycare, and receiving services through ACS here. Accordingly, Family Court should not have denied the mother’s motion without first holding a hearing. Matter of Nathaniel H. (Nathaniel H.–Dayalyn G.), 2023 NY Slip Op 00927, First Dept 2-16-23

Practice Point: The judge in this neglect proceeding should not have relinquished temporary emergency jurisdiction upon learning of father’s custody proceeding in Texas. Findings of fact required by the Domestic Relations Law were not made and there was no assurance the Texas court would safeguard the child.

 

You might also like
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S INJURY WAS DUE TO DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO PROVIDE HIM WITH THE PROPER PROTECTIVE DEVICES PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION; THE DISSENT DISAGREED; A STACK OF CONCRETE BOARDS FELL OFF A TRUCK ONTO PLAINTIFF WHEN THE SKIDS UNDER THE BOARDS BROKE (FIRST DEPT).
THE BUILDING MANAGING AGENT, WHO HIRED PEREZ, THE BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT, WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO DETERMINE WHETHER PEREZ, A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER, HAD A CRIMINAL RECORD; THE BUILDING OWNER AND MANAGING AGENT, THEREFORE, WERE NOT LIABLE UNDER A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION THEORY OR A RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR THEORY FOR PEREZ’S SEXUAL ASSAULT ON INFANT PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE 1994 ATTEMPTED MURDER CONVICTION ON “ACTUAL INNOCENCE” GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DENIED; DEFENDANT SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO WARRANT A HEARING, I.E., EVIDENCE A DECEASED COOPERATING WITNESS HAD CONFESSED TO BEING THE SHOOTER (FIRST DEPT).
HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION.
Third-Party Claims Against Other Law Firms Which Advised Plaintiff.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NEGLIGENT WAXING WAS CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL.
THE DEFENDANT DID NOT SUBMIT ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS OF THE DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FALL; THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE TESTIMONY THAT THE DEFECT WAS ONE-INCH IN HEIGHT WAS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
THE APPELLATE COURTS HAVE THE “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” POWER TO REDUCE AN OTHERWISE LEGAL AND APPROPRIATE SENTENCE WHEN THE DEFENDANT IS SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL; HERE THE MAJORITY CHOSE NOT TO REDUCE THE SENTENCE; A STRONG TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED FOR A REDUCTION (FIRST 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

A WORKER WHO WAS INJURED IN NEW YORK BUT LIVES IN NEW JERSEY CAN SEEK TREATMENT... THE CHALLENGES TO THE PROCEDURES FOR RELIGIOUS AND MEDICAL EXEMPTIONS FROM THE...