Matter of Anthony B. v Priscilla B.

Matter of Anthony B. v Priscilla B. 2011 NY Slip Op 07490 Decided on October 25, 2011 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 25, 2011
Tom, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, DeGrasse, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
5814

[*1]In re Anthony B., Petitioner-Respondent,

v

Priscilla B., Respondent-Appellant.




Steven N. Feinman, White Plains, for appellant.
Geoffrey P. Berman, Larchmont, for respondent.
Andrew H. Rossmer, Bronx, attorney for the child.

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Andrea Masley, J.), entered on or about June 3, 2010, which, to the extent appealed as limited by the briefs, found that New York was not an inconvenient forum pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-f, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court's decision was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see e.g. Matter of Hissam v Mancini, 80 AD3d 802, 803 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 870 [2011]). Even though the court did not explicitly discuss all the factors listed in Domestic Relations Law § 76-f(2), the record is sufficient to permit us to consider them (see e.g. Matter of Sutton v Sutton, 74 AD3d 1838, 1839 [2010]).

We note that a decision regarding inconvenient forum depends on the specific issue(s) to be decided in the pending litigation (see Matter of Jenkins v Jenkins, 9 AD3d 633, 636 [2004], appeals dismissed 5 NY3d 881 [2005], 6 NY3d 751 [2005]; see also Domestic Relations Law § 76-f[2][f]-[h]), and should there be changed circumstances in the future, the mother will not be precluded from arguing that New Jersey is a more appropriate forum (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-f[1] [court "may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time"] [emphasis added]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 25, 2011

CLERK