New York Court of Appeals, 1987

Paul B. S. v. Pamela J. S.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided September 17, 1987

70 N.Y.2d 739; 514 N.E.2d 382; 519 N.Y.S.2d 962; 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 18585

Cases that cite this one

19 later published cases cite this decision.

George A. v. Ivett A. (New York Supreme Court 2006)
Fenoff v. Fenoff (Vt. 1990)
Phillips v. Phillips (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Sandra C. v. Enrique M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
In re Travis Y. (NYC Family Court 2010)
Kosovsky v. Zahl (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
In re Daniel D. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Zafran v. Zafran (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
Murek v. Murek (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
People v. Trabazo (Criminal Court of the City of New York 1999)
Geller v. Geller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Anonymous v. Anonymous (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Cooper v. Wolkowitz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Vanderhoff v. Vanderhoff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Burp v. State (Ind. Ct. App. 1993)
In re Adam H. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1993)
Ramshaw v. Ramshaw (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Suffolk County Department of Social Services v. James M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Nacson v. Nacson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court’s concurrent jurisdiction over child abuse proceedings is unaffected by the grant of "exclusive original jurisdiction” to Family Court over such proceedings (see, NY Const, art VI, § 7; Family Ct Act §§ 114, 1013; Kagen v Kagen, 21 NY2d 532, 538). The question remains, however, whether Supreme Court abused its discretion as a matter of law in exercising its concurrent jurisdiction in the instant case (see, Kagen v Kagen, supra, at 538; see also, Herrick v Second Cuthouse, 64 NY2d 692, 693). Here, before the commencement of the separate abuse/neglect proceeding in Family Court, the matrimonial action had been commenced in Supreme Court, an extensive pendente lite hearing on child custody had been held, and psychiatric examinations had been ordered and completed. We conclude, under these circumstances, that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law in ordering consolidation of the two proceedings *742(CPLR 602 [b]) and exercising its concurrent jurisdiction over the abuse/neglect proceeding. Nor did Family Court, considering the circumstances in these consolidated proceedings, abuse its discretion as a matter of law in failing to conduct a dispositional hearing under Family Court Act § 1047. Appellant’s remaining arguments are without merit.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified answered in the affirmative.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.