Appellant's argument that, because of a pending action in Queens County, New York County was without jurisdiction over the proceeding, is not adopted. Petitioner did actually reside in New York on the day of her petition, and this is all that is required for venue (Family Ct. Act, § 421, subd. [e]). While the court in which the original matrimonial action was pending also would have had jurisdiction to entertain an application in respect of the marital affairs of the parties, it does not appear that any was made there as to any of the matters here reviewed. However, the wife, having voluntarily relinquished a well-paying position to replace her baby sitter as guardian of the child, is obviously not likely to become a public charge, and is therefore not entitled to the award made for her support ( Winter v. Winter, 246 App. Div. 232; Mays v. Mays, 251 App. Div. 316). Provision must, however, be made for the infant's support. Nor should the court have refused to hear the application in respect of custody of the child; such a hearing should have been held immediately to relieve the child of the possibility of becoming a shuttlecock between the parents.

In the circumstances it clearly appears that there is no likelihood of petitioner's becoming a public charge. ( Matter of Winter v. Winter, 246 App. Div. 232; Matter of Kiss v. Kiss, 242 id. 691.) It follows that the order should be reversed and the application denied.