Matter of Brown v Heubusch

Matter of Brown v Heubusch 2015 NY Slip Op 00158 Decided on January 2, 2015 Appellate Division, Fourth 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 January 2, 2015 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.
1431 CAF 14-00136

[*1]IN THE MATTER OF DANA P. BROWN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

v

VICKI L. HEUBUSCH, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Wyoming County (Michael F. Griffith, J.), entered November 26, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 8. The order dismissed the petition.

WYOMING COUNTY-ATTICA LEGAL AID BUREAU, WARSAW (ADAM W. KOCH OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT.

WILLIAM D. BRODERICK, JR., ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILDREN, ELMA.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to article 8 of the Family Court Act, petitioner father appeals from an order that dismissed his petition for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm. The father concedes that respondent mother moved with the children to Florida more than six months before the filing of the petition, and there is no evidence that they ever returned to New York. The record establishes that the children no longer "have a significant connection" with New York and that "substantial evidence is no longer available in this [S]tate concerning the child[ren]'s care, protection, training, and personal relationships" (Domestic Relations Law § 76-a [1] [a]), and the father failed to submit any evidence to the contrary. We therefore conclude that Family Court properly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction (see Matter of Maida v Capraro, 86 AD3d 924, 924; Matter of Zippo v Zippo, 41 AD3d 915, 916).

We have considered the father's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.

Entered: January 2, 2015

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court