Opinion
August 7, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
After the parties entered into a separation agreement, and after the New York divorce judgment was final, the defendant, accompanied by the three children of the marriage, moved to California. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the New York Supreme Court properly declined to determine the visitation issue in this instance.
The record indicates that the California Superior Court had already made an affirmative finding that it had jurisdiction to determine custody, visitation, and child support issues. The defendant had obtained an order from the California Superior Court establishing the New York judgment of divorce as a judgment in California. Moreover, the California Superior Court determined that California was the home State, the children had a significant connection with California, and that there was substantial evidence in California concerning the children's present and future care. It was, therefore, in the children's best interests that California assume jurisdiction (see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-d). Further, there was no evidence that the California court intended to relinquish jurisdiction (see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-g). Accordingly, the New York Supreme Court did not err by declining to exercise jurisdiction to determine the visitation issue (see generally, Vanneck v. Vanneck, 49 N.Y.2d 602, 610; Matter of Heitler v Hoosin, 143 A.D.2d 1018).
We have examined the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.