Summary
In Alintoff v. Alintoff (141 A.D.3d 518 [2d Dept 2016]), the Court upheld the Family Court's determination to dismiss a parent's family offense petition after determining they lacked jurisdiction pursuant to the UCCJEA.
Summary of this case from Family Offense Proceeding v. Chyann R.Opinion
07-06-2016
In the Matter of Rachel B. ALINTOFF, appellant, v. Bryan S. ALINTOFF, respondent.
Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, NY, for appellant. Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, NY (Janet Neustaetter and Barbara H. Dildine of counsel), attorney for the child.
Richard L. Herzfeld, New York, NY, for appellant.
Karen P. Simmons, Brooklyn, NY (Janet Neustaetter and Barbara H. Dildine of counsel), attorney for the child.
Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Dean T. Kusakabe, J.), dated September 18, 2015. The order dismissed the mother's family offense petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the mother's contentions, the Family Court properly determined that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the mother's family offense petition because there is a child custody proceeding pending in New Jersey (see Domestic Relations Law § 76–b ). The mother's family offense petition in New York gave rise to a “child custody proceeding” within the meaning of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, article 5–A of the Domestic Relations Law (Domestic Relations Law § 75–a[4] ), as the order of protection sought by the mother against the father would have necessarily affected the parties' custody and visitation rights (see Matter of Santiago v. Riley, 79 A.D.3d 1045, 915 N.Y.S.2d 99 ; cf. Matter of Hassan v. Silva, 100 A.D.3d 753, 754–755, 953 N.Y.S.2d 677 ). Accordingly, the Family Court properly dismissed the mother's petition.
RIVERA, J.P., LEVENTHAL, HINDS–RADIX and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.