New York Court of Appeals, 1997

Mott v. Patricia Ann R.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided December 22, 1997

91 N.Y.2d 856; 691 N.E.2d 623; 668 N.Y.S.2d 551; 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 3715

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Sayeh R. (N.Y. 1997)
Matter of Nemes v. Tutino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Bowman v. Bowman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Matter of William C. v. Zaida T. (Queens Family Court 2005)
Brillhart v. D'Andreamatteo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Zielinski v. Wayman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Steele v. Neeman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Steele v. Neeman (Wyo. 2000)
Consford v. Consford (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Frankel v. Siravo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
Collum v. Kelley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Reis v. Zimmer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
Leo v. Heard (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)

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, without costs. As New York’s court of general original jurisdiction (see, NY Const, art VI, § 7; Judiciary Law § 140-b), and under the "home state” provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) (Domestic Relations Law § 75-a et seq.), Supreme Court ordinarily would have subject matter jurisdiction over this Florida custody decree modification proceeding, as the children have been domiciled in New York for over eight years.

In the instant case, however, the Appellate Division correctly determined that the Federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 USC § 1738A) preempts the UCCJA, and its continuing jurisdiction provisions require Supreme Court to defer jurisdiction over this custody modification proceeding to *860the Florida courts, which have declined to relinquish jurisdiction (see, 28 USC § 1738A [c] [1]; [d], [f]; cf., Matter of Sayeh R., 91 NY2d 306 [decided today]).

Since Supreme Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, accordingly we need not reach any of the other issues raised by the parties below.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Order affirmed, without costs, in a memorandum.

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