From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Samuels v. Britton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 4, 1997
243 A.D.2d 570 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

August 4, 1997

Appeal from the Family Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.),


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant father, a Florida resident since 1987, contends that the Family Court in New York lacked personal jurisdiction over him and therefore it improperly entered an order of support in January 1995. However, Family Court Act § 154 (b) "permits the Family Court, in a [child support] proceeding, to exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident respondent where one of the minimum contacts delineated in the statute, which is designed to ensure due process, is shown to exist" ( Matter of Shirley D. v Carl D., 224 A.D.2d 60, 68). Here, contrary to the father's contention, the minimum contact requirement under Family Court Act § 154 (b) was fulfilled in that he furnished support for the parties' child while the child resided within New York State ( see, Family Ct Act § 154 [b] [4]; Matter of Comfort v. Frolich, 239 A.D.2d 416; Matter of Shirley D. v. Carl D., supra). Accordingly, there is no merit to the father's contention that the Family Court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.

The father's remaining contentions are without merit.

O'Brien, J.P., Santucci, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Samuels v. Britton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 4, 1997
243 A.D.2d 570 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Matter of Samuels v. Britton

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of ANDREA SAMUELS, Respondent, v. LAWRENCE BRITTON, Appellant

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

Date published: Aug 4, 1997

Citations

243 A.D.2d 570 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
662 N.Y.S.2d 603

Citing Cases

Senhart v. Senhart

o accompany his mother to New York, and then called her there to advise her that he was no longer interested…

Senhart v. Senhart

The court finds plaintiff's contention that the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (Family Ct Act art 5-B)…