You are here: / / MOTHER, WHO NOW RESIDES IN NEW YORK, MOVED TO MODIFY A TEXAS CUSTODY ORDER;...
, ,

MOTHER, WHO NOW RESIDES IN NEW YORK, MOVED TO MODIFY A TEXAS CUSTODY ORDER; BECAUSE TEXAS DID NOT CEDE JURISDICTION AND FATHER RESIDES IN TEXAS, FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION; ALTHOUGH FAMILY COURT COULD HAVE EXERCISED TEMPORARY EMERGENCY JURISDICTION AND COMMUNICATED WITH THE TEXAS COURT, IT DID NOT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gesmer, determined the judge did not have jurisdiction to grant mother’s petition to modify custody. The original custody order was issued in Texas, where father resides. Mother and child, with the permission of the Texas court, now reside in New York:

This case presents the difficult situation faced by a judge addressing a petition by a party who seeks to modify a custody order issued by a court of another state. Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act [UCCJEA] (Domestic Relations Law Art. 5-A, §§ 75 — 78-a), even where New York has become the child’s “[h]ome state” (Domestic Relations Law §75-a[7]), a New York judge does not have jurisdiction to modify a custody order issued by a foreign state unless either: 1) the foreign state cedes jurisdiction; or 2) neither the parents nor the child continue to reside in the foreign state (Domestic Relations Law § 76-b). Since neither of these situations was present in this case, Family Court had no jurisdiction to modify the custody order before it. Alternatively, if the New York judge determines that it is necessary to protect a child, sibling or parent, the court may take temporary emergency jurisdiction, communicate with the foreign court, and issue a time-limited order as necessary to protect the child and t0 permit the party seeking a modification to request it in the foreign court (Domestic Relations Law § 76-c). Here, since Family Court failed to communicate with the foreign court and failed to specify a time-limited duration for its order, it also did not appropriately take emergency jurisdiction. * * *

… [H]ad Family Court recognized that Texas had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over its custody order that the mother sought to modify, it could have contacted the Texas court in order to determine whether the Texas court would relinquish jurisdiction, thus permitting Family Court to exercise jurisdiction to modify the Texas custody order pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-b. If the Texas court did not agree to relinquish jurisdiction, Family Court could then determine whether it should take emergency jurisdiction and issue a time-limited order pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-c. Matter of Natalie P. v Steven L.R., 2026 NY Slip Op 02458, First Dept 4-23-26

Practice Point: A New York court does not have jurisdiction to modify an out-of-state custody order unless the foreign state cedes jurisdiction or no party continues to reside in the foreign state.

 

You might also like
DESTRUCTION OF BLOOD EVIDENCE IN FLOODING CAUSED BY HURRICANE SANDY DID NOT WARRANT AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION.
NEW YORK LAW APPLIES TO DISCOVERY IN THIS SUIT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AGAINST EXXON ALLEGING FRAUD IN CONNECTION WITH EXXON’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING, NO ACCOUNTANT PRIVILEGE IN NEW YORK.
ALTHOUGH THE SIDEWALK DEFECT WAS SMALL, THE AREA WAS DARKENED BY SCAFFOLDING; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
AFTER PLAINTIFF’S POST-NOTE DEPOSITION SUBPOENA FOR THE NONPARTY WITNESS WAS QUASHED, PLAINTIFF OBTAINED A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT FROM THE NONPARTY WITNESS; OBTAINING THE STATEMENT WAS A PROPER METHOD OF “INFORMAL DISCOVERY” (FIRST DEPT).
THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY (1) WAS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYEE AND (2) MAY NOT BE PAID WITHIN ONE YEAR DID NOT RENDER THE ORAL CONTRACT ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO LEGAL FEES VOID UNDER THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS, BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES WERE PROPERLY PLED IN THE ALTERNATIVE (FIRST DEPT).
COMMON LAW INDEMNIFICATION ONLY AVAILABLE TO A PARTY WHO IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE, AS OPPOSED TO LIABLE FOR THE PARTY’S OWN NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF LANDLORD WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW THE FULLY EXECUTED LEASE WAS EVER DELIVERED TO DEFENDANT TENANT; THEREFORE THE LANDLORD WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON THE TERMS OF THE LEASE (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCAFFOLD TILTED OR COLLAPSED CAUSING EVERYTHING IN IT TO CRASH ONTO HIM (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

THE NEGOTIATED PLEA TO A MISDEMEANOR INFORMATION WAS VACATED AND THE DISMISSAL... PLAINTIFF, AN EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIAN (EMT), AFTER A COMPLAINT MADE BY...