Opinion
2018–10421 Docket Nos. V–30952–15, V–30953–15
11-20-2019
In the Matter of George OCASIO, Appellant, v. Janel OCASIO, Respondent.
Carol Kahn, New York, NY, for appellant.
Carol Kahn, New York, NY, for appellant.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The parties are the parents of the two subject children. In the Family Court, Kings County, the father petitioned for sole legal and physical custody of the subject children. In Hawaii, the mother commenced an action for a divorce and ancillary relief. In that Hawaii action, the mother sought, inter alia, sole legal and physical custody of the subject children and of their sibling, who was born in Hawaii subsequent to the commencement of the Kings County proceedings. After conferring with the Hawaii court and hearing the arguments of the parties, the Family Court, Kings County, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law article 5–A, in effect, declined jurisdiction over the proceedings and dismissed the proceedings on the ground that the New York court is an inconvenient forum and the Hawaii court is a more appropriate forum. The father appeals.
A court of this state which has jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act "may decline to exercise it if it finds that New York is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum" ( Matter of Hassan v. Silva , 100 A.D.3d 753, 754, 953 N.Y.S.2d 677 ; see Domestic Relations Law art 5–A; § 76–f[1]; Matter of Montanez v. Tompkinson , 167 A.D.3d 616, 618, 90 N.Y.S.3d 62 ). "Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors" ( Domestic Relations Law § 76–f[2] ), including those set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 76–f(2) (see Domestic Relations Law § 76–f[2][a]–[h] ). Here, we agree with the Family Court's determination declining jurisdiction on the ground that the Hawaii court is the more appropriate forum to address the issue of custody of the subject children (see Matter of Veen v. Golovanoff , 169 A.D.3d 804, 806, 94 N.Y.S.3d 137 ; Matter of Peiyi Wang v. Christensen , 165 A.D.3d 1269, 1270, 84 N.Y.S.3d 808 ).
The father's remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court or without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., CHAMBERS, LEVENTHAL and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.