From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Onondaga Cy. Dep., SS v. James M

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 10, 1998
251 A.D.2d 1081 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

June 10, 1998

Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Rossi, J. — Support.

Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Balio, JJ.


Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion granted and proceeding dismissed. Memorandum: This proceeding seeking a modification of respondent's child support obligation under the Uniform Support of Dependents Law ([USDL] Domestic Relations Law art 3-A) was initiated with the filing in Family Court of a "Child Support Enforcement Transmittal" prepared by an employee of the Child Support Division of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas. Respondent's daughter and ex-wife, on whose behalf the proceeding was brought, are, residents of Dallas, Texas. No verified petition, however, was ever filed in any court in Texas, the initiating State, or in Family Court, the appropriate court in New York, the responding State ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 37 [1], [3]). Respondent moved to dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction. The motion was denied by the Hearing Examiner, and Family Court denied respondent's objections to the Hearing Examiner's order. Following a hearing, respondent's weekly support obligation was increased from $15 to $140.78.

Respondent's motion to dismiss the proceeding based upon the failure to file a verified petition should have been granted. The filing of the "Child Support Enforcement Transmittal" and accompanying documentation did not satisfy the statutory requirements for commencing a USDL proceeding. "The failure to file a petition in this proceeding renders Family Court without jurisdiction" ( Matter of Sheehan v. Sheehan, 221 A.D.2d 897, 898, lv dismissed 88 N.Y.2d 932; see, Matter of Rensselaer (County Dept. of Social Servs. [Cossart] v. Cossart, 38 A.D.2d 635, 636). We therefore reverse the order, grant the motion and dismiss the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction ( see, Matter of Sheehan v. Sheehan, supra, at 898).


Summaries of

Matter of Onondaga Cy. Dep., SS v. James M

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jun 10, 1998
251 A.D.2d 1081 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Onondaga Cy. Dep., SS v. James M

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, on Behalf…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Jun 10, 1998

Citations

251 A.D.2d 1081 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
675 N.Y.S.2d 576

Citing Cases

Hayes v. Hayes

Finally, the Hearing Examiner also erred in sua sponte granting respondent a downward modification of child…

Harriet II. v. Alex LL.

Petitioner does not challenge Family Court's dismissal of her petition. The fundamental flaws in Family…