Opinion
2020–05706 Docket No. O–210–20
07-21-2021
In the Matter of Josette SANTANA, appellant, v. Vincent PENA, respondent.
Legal Services of the Hudson Valley, Newburgh, N.Y. (Amanda D. Tarallo of counsel), for appellant. Jessica Bacal, Mount Kisco, NY, attorney for the children.
Legal Services of the Hudson Valley, Newburgh, N.Y. (Amanda D. Tarallo of counsel), for appellant.
Jessica Bacal, Mount Kisco, NY, attorney for the children.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, WILLIAM G. FORD, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Carol S. Klein, J.), dated January 30, 2020. The order dismissed the family offense petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and vacated a temporary order of protection dated January 14, 2020.
ORDERED that the order dated January 30, 2020, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the Family Court properly determined that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to entertain her family offense petition on the ground that another state had exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the parties' custody and parental access dispute and the order of protection which she was seeking would have necessarily affected the respondent's parental access rights (see Matter of Etzel v. Freleng, 188 A.D.3d 1054, 132 N.Y.S.3d 679 ; Matter of Alintoff v. Alintoff, 141 A.D.3d 518, 33 N.Y.S.3d 905 ). Notably, Family Court Act § 154–e provides the petitioner with the ability to enforce in New York an order of protection entered in another state. Accordingly, the court properly dismissed the petition and vacated a temporary order of protection.
CHAMBERS, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, CHRISTOPHER and FORD, JJ., concur.