You are here: / / ISRAELI CUSTODY ORDER WAS REGISTERED IN NEW YORK, FATHER FAILED TO CONTEST...

ISRAELI CUSTODY ORDER WAS REGISTERED IN NEW YORK, FATHER FAILED TO CONTEST THE REGISTRATION OF THE ISRAELI CUSTODY ORDER WITHIN 20 DAYS, FATHER’S PETITION TO REGISTER AND ENFORCE A CALIFORNIA CUSTODY ORDER, WHICH HAD BEEN MODIFIED BY THE ISRAELI ORDER, PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined Family Court properly denied father’s petitions for registration and enforcement of a California custody order. Mother, who was living in Israel, had acquired an Israeli court order modifying the California order. The Israeli order was registered in New York and father was notified of the application for registration. Father had 20 days to contest and failed to do so:

Domestic Relations Law § 77-d provides for the registering, and contesting, of an out-of-state custody decree. Upon receipt of the child custody determination to be registered, the New York court is obligated to serve notice upon the affected persons and provide them with an opportunity to contest the registration (see Domestic Relations Law § 77-d[2][b]). The statute provides that “[a] person seeking to contest the validity of a registered order must request a hearing within twenty days after service of the notice” (Domestic Relations Law § 77-d[4]). At the hearing, the court “shall confirm the registered order” unless the person contesting registration establishes that (a) the issuing court did not have jurisdiction, (b) the custody determination sought to be registered has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court having jurisdiction to do so, or (c) the person contesting registration was entitled to, but did not receive, notice in the underlying proceedings before the court that issued the order for which registration is sought (Domestic Relations Law § 77-d[4]). If no timely contest is made, “the registration is confirmed as a matter of law” (Domestic Relations Law § 77-d[5]). “Confirmation of a registered order, whether by operation of law or after notice and hearing, precludes further contest of the order with respect to any matter that could have been asserted at the time of registration” … . Matter of Worsoff v Worsoff, 2018 NY Slip Op 03373, Second Dept 5-9-18

​FAMILY LAW (CUSTODY, OUT OF STATE ORDERS, ISRAELI CUSTODY ORDER WAS REGISTERED IN NEW YORK, FATHER FAILED TO CONTEST THE REGISTRATION OF THE ISRAELI CUSTODY ORDER WITHIN 20 DAYS, FATHER’S PETITION TO REGISTER AND ENFORCE A CALIFORNIA CUSTODY ORDER, WHICH HAD BEEN MODIFIED BY THE ISRAELI ORDER, PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))/CUSTODY (FAMILY LAW, OUT OF STATE ORDERS, REGISTRATION, ISRAELI CUSTODY ORDER WAS REGISTERED IN NEW YORK, FATHER FAILED TO CONTEST THE REGISTRATION OF THE ISRAELI CUSTODY ORDER WITHIN 20 DAYS, FATHER’S PETITION TO REGISTER AND ENFORCE A CALIFORNIA CUSTODY ORDER, WHICH HAD BEEN MODIFIED BY THE ISRAELI ORDER, PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
NOT CLEAR WHETHER $1740 EXEMPTION FROM A JUDGMENT CREDITOR’S RESTRAINT OF FUNDS  HELD BY A BANK APPLIES TO ALL ACCOUNTS IN THE AGGREGATE OR TO EACH ACCOUNT, BANK’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING EACH ACCOUNT MUST BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY PROPERLY DENIED.
DOG-BITE STRICT LIABILITY LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED, DOG-OWNER’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED A PARTIAL VERDICT WITHOUT INTERVIEWING THE JUROR WHO HAD INFORMED THE COURT SHE COULD NOT CONTINUE DELIBERATING BECAUSE SHE WAS SUFFERING ANXIETY ATTACKS; BECAUSE THE JUROR WAS NOT QUESTIONED, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHETHER THE PARTIAL VERDICT WAS REACHED BEFORE THE JUROR BECAME UNABLE TO CONTINUE (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER BROUGHT A PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY AND ALLEGED SHE DID NOT CONSENT TO THE STIPULATION UNDERLYING THE EXISTING CUSTODY ORDER; BECAUSE THE STIPULATION WAS NOT IN THE RECORD AND ITS TERMS WERE NOT IN THE CUSTODY ORDER, A HEARING WAS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
A CROSS-MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 (C) IS NOT AN APPEARANCE AND DOES NOT WAIVE THE LACK-OF-JURISDICTION DEFENSE; INFANT DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT SERVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CPLR 309; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT)
Where the Complaint Alleged Only that the Driveway Was Defective and the Complaint Against the Company Which Renovated the Driveway Was Dismissed, the Complaint Against the Property Owners Should Have Been Dismissed As Well–There Was No Viable Theory for Liability on the Part of the Property Owners
Denial of Parole Supported by Evidence
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ALLOW THE EX PARTE INTERVIEW OF THE NONPARTY TREATING PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL WAS PROPERLY DENIED (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

CITY’S DECISION TO LAYOFF FIREFIGHTERS IS NOT ARBITRABLE UNDER A COLLECTIVE... NO INDICATION MOTHER SUFFERED FROM MENTAL ILLNESS, PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAM SHOULD...