Those provisions give Family Court the authority to exercise jurisdiction when: While foreign countries are not included in the definition of a "state" (see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-c[10]), we are mindful that the "general policies of [the UCCJA] extend to the international area" (Domestic Relations Law § 75-w; see,Kosmicki v. Salzer, 252 A.D.2d 972, 973; see also, Matter of Nesa v. Baten [decided herewith]). (b) it is in the best interest of the child that a court of this state assume jurisdiction because (i) the child and his parents, or the child and at least one contestant, have a significant connection with this state, and (ii) there is within the jurisdiction of the court substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships; or
had already terminated upon the parties' divorce — there was no basis for a finding that it was in the children's best interests that a court of this State assume jurisdiction (Domestic Relations Law § 75-d[b]; see, Vanneck v. Vanneck, 49 N.Y.2d 602, 610). Finally, the children's extended absences from New York, in fact exceeding the duration of their presence in New York, is a strong indication that Bangladesh, rather than New York, has "optimum access" to relevant evidence concerning the children's present or future care, protection, training and personal relationships (see, Steinman v. Steinman, 80 A.D.2d 892, 893-894; see also, Domestic Relations Law § 75-d[b]; Sobie, Practice Commentary, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law § 75-Dom. Rel. d, at 346), and it is difficult to see how the children's best interests would be served by having a New York court litigate issues of custody (see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-d[b],[d]; Vanneck v. Vanneck, supra, at 610; Kosmicki v. Salzer, 252 A.D.2d 972). "Although the term `State' does not include another country * * *, the `general policies of [the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act] extend to the international area'" (Kosmicki v. Salzer, supra, at 973, quoting Domestic Relations Law § 75-w [citation omitted]; see, Matter of Kratz v. Olsen [decided herewith]). Petitioner's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for our consideration or have been considered and found to be unavailing.
Likewise, there appears to be "no other state" that would have jurisdiction under the UCCJA. Under the UCCJA, a foreign nation is not a "state" and can never be deemed the child's "home state" (Domestic Relations Law § 75-c, [10]). Although Domestic Relations Law § 75-w provides that the "general policies" of the UCCJA "extend to the international area", the decisions uniformly hold that the courts of New York are not required to apply the jurisdictional provisions of the UCCJA in international disputes and need not defer to the courts of a foreign nation (see, Kosmicki v. Salzer, 252 A.D.2d 972, 973; Matter of Massey v. Massey, 89 A.D.2d 566, 567; Matter of Rivera v. Santiago, supra, at 256-257; Koons v. Koons, 161 Misc.2d 842, 847; Klien v. Klien, 141 Misc.2d 174, 179; Matter of Mark L. v. Jennifer S., 133 Misc.2d 454, 459; see also, Matter of Lotte U. v. Leo U., 128 Misc.2d 896, 897; see generally, Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law § 75-w, at 363). Moreover, although principles of international comity are important under the UCCJA, New York should defer only to those foreign nations whose "legal institutions [are] similar in nature" to our own (Domestic Relations Law § 75-w), and whose regard for the rule of law and due process parallels that of American courts (see, Zwerling v. Zwerling, 167 Misc.2d 782, 790; Matter of L. H. v. Youth Welfare Off. of Weisbaden, Germany, 150 Misc.2d 490, 495-496; Matter of Lotte U. v. Leo U., supra, at 897-898).
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Although Supreme Court had jurisdiction over this custody dispute ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-d), the court properly declined to exercise its jurisdiction on the ground that New York is an inconvenient forum ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-h; Kosmicki v. Salzer, ___ A.D.2d ___ [decided July 8, 1998]). The record establishes that defendant mother and the child presently reside in the State of Washington, where the child was born and where the families of both parties reside.
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Although Supreme Court had jurisdiction over this custody dispute ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-d), the court properly declined to exercise its jurisdiction on the ground that New York is an inconvenient forum ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-h; Kosmicki v. Salzer, 252 A.D.2d 972). The record establishes that defendant mother and the child presently reside in the State of Washington, where the child was born and where the families of both parties reside. Plaintiff, a member of the United States Coast Guard, no longer resides in the State of New York. All evidence concerning "the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships is more readily available" (Domestic Relations Law § 75-h [c]) in the State of Washington, the State with which the child and his family have the closest connection ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-b [c]; Kosmicki v. Salzer, supra).
"While foreign countries are not included in the definition of a 'state,'" the "general policies of [the Act] extend to the international area." Matter of Kratz v Olsen, 290 AD2d 689, 690 n 1 (3rd Dept. 2002); see Domestic Relations Law § 75-c(10); Domestic Relations Law former § 75-w; Matter of Nesa v Baten, 290 AD2d 663 (3rd Dept. 2002); Kosmicki v Salzer, 252 AD2d 972, 973 (4th Dept. 1998).
In her affirmation of May 3, 2006, the Defendant's attorney cites Kosmicki v. Salzer, 252 AD2d 972 (Fourth Dept., 1998) and Lawrence v. Lawrence, 258 AD2d 966 (Fourth Dept., 1999) as authority for finding that the inconvenience of one of the parties dictates that venue should rest in the state where the party most inconvenienced lives. However, Kosmicki dealt primarily with the New York court's application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) where the mother and child resided in Florida, and then Germany.