Matter of Curtis v. Curtis

2 Citing cases

  1. Sadie HH. v. Darrin II.

    180 A.D.3d 1178 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Family Court acknowledged her indigency and that it was unable to conclude whether Arizona could provide indigent legal representation to her. In light of the indigency of the mother, making her unable to participate meaningfully in the hearing in Arizona, and the fact that the parties may obtain relevant evidence from Arizona, we conclude that the hearing on the petition, which is limited solely to the issue of enforcement of the mother's established visitation rights, must be held before Family Court (see Matter of Curtis v. Curtis, 237 A.D.2d 984, 984, 654 N.Y.S.2d 538 [1997] ). Based on the foregoing, we cannot agree with Family Court's conclusion that New York is an inconvenient forum.

  2. Uhl v. Uhl

    244 A.D.2d 935 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 3 times

    Nor did the Washington court stay its proceedings and contact Family Court after being informed in August 1996 that Family Court was exercising jurisdiction over the matter (Wash Rev Code Annot § 26.27.060 [3]; see, Evans v. Evans, 208 A.D.2d 223, 228-230). Furthermore, Family Court should have contacted the Washington court before declining jurisdiction ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-g; § 75-h [4]; see also, Evans v. Evans, supra, at 229-230), and should have afforded the parties an opportunity to present evidence concerning the statutory factors ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-h; Matter of Smith v. Smith, supra, at 1096-1097; see also, Matter of Curtis v. Curtis, 237 A.D.2d 984). Therefore, we reverse the order and remit the matter to Ontario County Family Court for further proceedings to determine whether it will exercise its jurisdiction to resolve this custody dispute.