From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of D'Addio v. Marx

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 5, 2001
288 A.D.2d 218 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted October 9, 2001

November 5, 2001.

In a proceeding pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 5-A to modify an out-of-state custody decree, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Kent, J.), entered December 3, 1999, which, upon refusing to exercise emergency jurisdiction, dismissed the petition.

Burke Probitsky, Hauppauge, N.Y., for appellant.

Del Atwell, Montank, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, SONDRA MILLER, ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 75-d(1)(c)(ii), a New York court possesses jurisdiction to render a custody determination when, inter alia, the child is physically present in this state and it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child (see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-d[c][ii]). Therefore, New York can exercise jurisdiction in an emergency situation "vitally and directly" affecting the health, welfare, and safety of the subject child (Martin v. Martin, 45 N.Y.2d 739, 742). "A primary consideration for the exercise of emergency jurisdiction is whether a return to the home jurisdiction would place the child in imminent risk of harm" (Matter of Vanessa E., 190 A.D.2d 134, 137; see also, Matter of Michael P. v. Diana G., 156 A.D.2d 59, 66). "As the language of the statute makes clear, once an emergency is found to exist, the court has jurisdiction and is empowered to determine the issue of child custody. The emergency and the child's safety outweigh all other considerations" (Matter of Vanessa E., supra, at 137).

The petitioner did not present any evidence which would require a New York court to exercise jurisdiction on an emergency basis. Accordingly, the father's unsubstantiated allegations of threat to the well-being of the subject children were insufficient to require New York to invoke its emergency jurisdiction to modify custody of children who were subject to a custody decree of a California court.

RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, S. MILLER and FLORIO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In the Matter of D'Addio v. Marx

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 5, 2001
288 A.D.2d 218 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

In the Matter of D'Addio v. Marx

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL D'ADDIO, APPELLANT, v. CYNTHIA MARX, RESPONDENT

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 5, 2001

Citations

288 A.D.2d 218 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
732 N.Y.S.2d 573

Citing Cases

Weyant v. Barnett

rt of jurisdiction (see Matter of Zielinski v. Wayman, 300 A.D.2d 945, 947, 752 N.Y.S.2d 447, 449). Domestic…

Chautauqua Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Kenneth M.Y. (In re Bridget Y.)

ablished by demonstrating that the state at issue was the children's home state, but the “UCCJEA elevates the…