You are here: / / BECAUSE FAMILY COURT HAD EXCLUSIVE AND CONTINUING JURISDICTION OVER THIS...
, ,

BECAUSE FAMILY COURT HAD EXCLUSIVE AND CONTINUING JURISDICTION OVER THIS CUSTODY CASE, MOTHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUMMARILY DISMISSED BECAUSE FATHER AND CHILD RESIDE OUT-OF-STATE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Family Court, determined mother’s petition to modify custody should not have summarily dismissed because father and child were living out-of-state. Because New York has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, the court should have allowed mother to present evidence on any connections to New York:

Pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, codified at article 5-A of the Domestic Relations Law, a court of this state which has made an initial custody determination has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over that determination until it finds, as is relevant here, that it should relinquish that jurisdiction because “neither the child” nor “the child and one parent” have a “significant connection” with New York, and “substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships” … .

… [T]he initial custody determination was rendered in New York. … Family Court should not have summarily dismissed the mother’s petitions on the ground that the child was living with the father out of state, without considering whether the court had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a(1), and affording the mother an opportunity to present evidence as to that issue … . Matter of Brandon v Brady, 2024 NY Slip Op 01916, Second Dept 4-10-24

Practice Point: Where New York has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over a custody matter pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, it is error to summarily dismiss a custody petition on the ground the child lives out-of-state. It must be determined whether there exist sufficient connections with New York to warrant hearing the case in New York.

 

You might also like
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE IGNORED THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN THE BUSINESS CORPORATION LAW AND SHOULD NOT HAVE DISSOLVED THE CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST A DOCTOR PROPERLY SEVERED FROM A NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION ACTION AGAINST THE DOCTOR’S EMPLOYER (SECOND DEPT).
The Jury Should Have Been Instructed on the Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine—Infection Developed After Injection
THE JUDGE DID NOT ENSURE THAT DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF A JURY TRIAL WAS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY (SECOND DEPT).
Review Criteria for Actions by Zoning Boards of Appeal
THE BANK’S FAILURE TO OFFER A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A COURT RULE REQUIRING THAT A MOTION FOR A JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE BE FILED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THE ENTRY OF THE ORDER OF REFERENCE WARRANTED DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED MORE TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANT UNDER EITHER THE “GOOD CAUSE” OR “INTEREST OF JUSTICE” CRITERIA (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ORDERED THE PARTIES TO EQUALLY SHARE THE COSTS OF FATHER’S SUPERVISED VISITATION WITHOUT EVALUATING THE PARTIES’ FINANCES (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE ELECTRICAL-CONTRACTOR CORP WAS NOT LICENSED TO DO ELECTRICAL WORK IN NYC;... PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT DID NOT ESTABLISH EITHER THE “GENERAL CAUSATION”...