Adam N. v. Darah D.

203 A.D.3d 583

165 N.Y.S.3d 53

In the Matter of ADAM N., Petitioner–Respondent,

v.DARAH D., Respondent–Appellant.

15550

Dkt. No. V-00564/19, V-00564/19B, V-00564/19C, V-00564/19D

Case No. 2021–01746

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

ENTERED March 22, 2022

Larry S. Bachner, New York, for appellant.

Cavallo Law, PLLC, New York (Carrie Anne Cavallo of counsel), for respondent.

Renwick, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Singh, Kennedy, Scarpulla, JJ.

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jonathan H. Shim, J.), entered on or about May 10, 2021, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the cross motion of petitioner father to dismiss this article 6 proceeding on grounds of forum non conveniens, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

A decision on forum non conveniens is left to the discretion of the trial court. Domestic Relations Law § 76–f specifically requires that before such a determination is made, Family Court "shall" allow the parties to make a submission on this issue and then "shall" consider all relevant factors including those listed in Domestic Relations Law § 76–f (2)(a-h) ( Matter of Kevin McK. v. Elizabeth A.E., 151 A.D.3d 600, 54 N.Y.S.3d 17 [1st Dept. 2017] ; see also Matter of Sanchez v. Johnson, 189 A.D.3d 1254, 137 N.Y.S.3d 69 [2d Dept. 2020] ). Family Court's determination that California, rather than New York, was the more appropriate forum for this matter, a component of which is the parties’ dispute over whether the subject child should live with the father in California, or with respondent mother in Norway, was a provident exercise of its discretion after consideration of the statutory factors.

We reject respondent's argument that the court misapplied Domestic Relations Law § 76–f(2) factors. While she argues the court failed to take into account that her witnesses are all in New York, she does not identify any of these witnesses. She reiterates that she lived with the child in New York for eight years, whereas petitioner has only lived in California since March 2020, but she does not state what evidence from her years here would be probative of the relief she seeks now, namely the child's relocation to Norway. She faults the court for not holding a hearing, but she does not state what additional information the court, which had "allow[ed] the parties to submit information" ( Domestic Relations Law § 76–f [2] ), should have had before reaching its forum non conveniens determination.

We also reject her argument that, contrary to Family Court's determination, Domestic Relations Law § 76–f(2)(e) factor ("any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction") applies here, because there was an alleged agreement between the parties as to forum; specifically, the "relocation" provision of the Florida order. The provision she cites addresses choice of law (Florida's), not choice of forum, and she does not show that, in the proceedings in California, she cannot argue that Florida law applies to the relocation issue. In any event, she does not rebut or otherwise...