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
MOTION TO RENEW IN WHICH DOCUMENT PREVIOUSLY REJECTED WAS RESUBMITTED IN ADMISSIBLE FORM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY TO APARTMENT CEILING COLLAPSE BECAUSE LANDLORD DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER LANDLORD BREACHED DUTY TO KEEP PREMISES SAFE (SECOND DEPT).
Bus Company’s Duty of Care Did Not Include Keeping Steps to the Bus Dry and Free of Snow During a Snow Storm
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER BY RELIGIOUS CORPORATION INVALID, CORPORATION DID NOT SEEK COURT APPROVAL FOR THE TRANSFER 2ND DEPT.
THE BATSON CHALLENGE TO THE PROSECUTOR’S EXCLUSION OF A JUROR SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
Best Interests of Child Justified Denial of Petition to Vacate Acknowledgment of Paternity (Equitable Estoppel)
THE DISMISSAL OF THE 2009 FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT CONSTITUTE A REVOCATION OF THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TRIGGERED BY THE 2009 ACTION EXPIRED AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ENTITLED TO A DISCHARGE OF THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER OF CITY TRUCK EXERCISED REASONABLE CARE DURING AN EMERGENCY STOP IN THE LEFT LANE OF A HIGHWAY.

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”...