You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD, IN 2018, GRANTED MOTHER’S APPLICATION TO...
, , ,

ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD, IN 2018, GRANTED MOTHER’S APPLICATION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD TO CONNECTICUT, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY ORDER WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING ABOUT THE CHILD’S CONNECTIONS TO NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the judge should not have determined New York courts no longer had jurisdiction over this modification of custody case without holding a hearing:

In November 2018, the Supreme Court granted the mother’s application to relocate with the child from New York to Connecticut. In an order dated May 31, 2022, the court awarded sole custody of the child to the mother and suspended the father’s parental access upon the father’s default in appearing at a scheduled court appearance. The father subsequently filed a petition to modify the order dated May 31, 2022, so as to award him sole physical custody of the child. At a court appearance on December 5, 2022, the court stated, inter alia, that the mother had “relocated to Connecticut years ago” and that “[t]he [c]ourt no longer has jurisdiction.” …

The Supreme Court should not have summarily determined, without a hearing, that it lacked jurisdiction on the ground that the child had been residing in Connecticut. The court made previous custody determinations in relation to the child in conformity with the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and, therefore, would ordinarily retain exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a … . In order to determine whether it lacked exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a(1)(a), the court should have afforded the parties an opportunity to present evidence as to whether the child had maintained a significant connection with New York and whether substantial evidence was available in New York concerning the child’s “care, protection, training, and personal relationships” … . Matter of Holley v Mills, 2024 NY Slip Op 01542, Second Dept 3-20-24

Practice Point: Although the court in 2018 granted mother’s application to relocate to Connecticut with the child, it may have continuing jurisdiction. Therefore the court should not have decided it did not have jurisdiction over father’s petition to modify the custody order without holding a hearing about the child’s connections to New York.

Similar jurisdiction issue in a child support modification proceeding (governed by Family Court Act 580-205(a)) in Matter of Sherman v Killian, 2024 NY Slip Op 01550, Second Dept 3-20-24

You might also like
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT BUS DRIVER SAW WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN AND WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED TO THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE; THE BUS WAS BEHIND PLAINTIFF’S SCOOTER AND BOTH THE BUS AND THE SCOOTER APPARENTLY CHANGED LANES AT THE SAME TIME (SECOND DEPT).
HANDWRITTEN PROVISION OF A LETTER OF INTENT CONTROLS, THE LETTER OF INTENT IS NOT A BINDING CONTRACT, BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY AND TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED IN THE ABSENCE OF A BINDING CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THE BENEFIT TO THE DEFENDANTS WAS UNIDENTIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
PROPERTY DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO JOIN THE SLIP AND FALL ACTION WITH A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION STEMMING FROM THE SLIP AND FALL INJURY PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Operative Principles Re: a Collision Where Plaintiff Has the Right-of-Way Explained
ROBBERY CONVICTIONS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF PHYSICAL INJURY; SEVERAL CONVICTIONS, ALTHOUGH SUPPORTED BY LEGALLY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, WERE AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF THE WEAKNESS OF THE IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
A SUBCONTRACTOR CAN BE LIABLE FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE WORK SITE ONLY IF IT EXERCISED SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE; THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SUBCONTRACTOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1303 AND 1304 WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO THE BANK (SECOND DEPT).
“Single Motion Rule” Barred Motions to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)

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

AFTER RESPONDENT-STUDENT THREATENED TO “SHOOT… UP THE SCHOOL,”... CPLR ARTICLE 63-A IS CONSTITUTIONAL; THE STATUTE ALLOWS ISSUANCE OF AN EXTREME...