Wilson v. Linn, 79 A.D.3d 1767 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Wilson v. Linn, 79 A.D.3d 1767 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Matter of Anderson v. Cintron (nyappdiv, 2025-10-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Anderson v. Cintron (6×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 2025 · confidence medium
However, with no record of the proceedings that occurred with respect to the order on appeal, we are unable to determine on this record what provision of the Domestic Relations Law the court relied on in deciding that it lacked jurisdiction, whether the court complied with the procedures of the UCCJEA in making that determination ( see § 75-i; see generally Matter of Beyer v Hofmann , 161 AD3d 1536, 1537 [4th Dept 2018]; Matter of Wilson v Linn , 79 AD3d 1767, 1768 [4th Dept 2010]), and whether the court's decision had evidentiary support.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Graves v. Huff
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see also · confidence medium
We therefore reverse the order in appeal No. 2 insofar as appealed from, deny the mother's motion to dismiss in its entirety, reinstate the father's application filed on August 1, 2017, and remit the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings thereon in compliance with section 76-f (2) ( see Matter of Berg v Narolis , 64 AD3d 1188, 1189 [4th Dept 2009]; see also Matter of Wilson v Linn , 79 AD3d 1767, 1768 [4th Dept 2010]; Matter of Scala v Tefft , 42 AD3d 689, 692 [3d Dept 2007]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Frank MM. v. Lorain NN.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: compare · confidence medium
A determination as to whether a court is an inconvenient forum is left to the sound discretion of the trial court after consideration of eight enumerated factors (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-f [2] [a]-[h]; Matter of Hissam v Mancini, 80 AD3d 802, 803 [2011], lv dismissed and denied 16 NY3d 870 [2011]; Matter of Eisner v Eisner, 44 AD3d 1111, 1113 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 816 [2007]). 1 First addressing the petition to modify the custody order with respect to the older child (proceeding No. 2), we note that, while Family Court did not specifically address each and every factor, the record …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Frank MM. v. Lorain NN.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: compare · confidence medium
A determination as to whether a court is an inconvenient forum is left to the sound discretion of the trial court after consideration of eight enumerated factors (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-f [2] [a]-[h]; Matter of Hissam v Mancini, 80 AD3d 802, 803 [2011], lv dismissed and denied 16 NY3d 870 [2011]; Matter of Eisner v Eisner, 44 AD3d 1111, 1113 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 816 [2007]). 1 First addressing the petition to modify the custody order with respect to the older child (proceeding No. 2), we note that, while Family Court did not specifically address each and every factor, the record …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Clifton J. Wilson
v.
Tamera K. Linn
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 30, 2010.
79 A.D.3d 1767
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Cattaraugus County (Michael L. Nenno, J.), entered January 14, 2010 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order[*1768] granted the motion of respondent to transfer the proceeding to Montgomery, Alabama.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the matter is remitted to Family Court, Cattaraugus County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Petitioner father appeals from an order granting respondent mother’s motion to transfer “jurisdiction” of this proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6 to Montgomery, Alabama. On a prior appeal, we affirmed the order granting the mother’s petition to modify a prior order of custody and visitation by granting the mother permission for the parties’ child to relocate with her to Alabama (Matter of Linn v Wilson, 68 AD3d 1767 [2009]). We reject the father’s contention that the Referee lacked the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter. Although the father did not personally sign the stipulation granting jurisdiction to the Referee, the record establishes that his attorney did so (see Matter of Foster v Bartlett, 59 AD3d 976 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 710 [2009]).

We agree with the father, however, “that the record fails to establish that [Family Court] considered all of the requisite . . . factors” pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-f (2) in determining that New York was an inconvenient forum (Matter of Berg v Narolis, 64 AD3d 1188, 1189 [2009]; see Matter of Michael McC. v Manuela A., 48 AD3d 91, 98 [2007], lv dismissed 10 NY3d 836 [2008]; Matter of Blerim M. v Racquel M., 41 AD3d 306, 310-311 [2007]). Moreover, although the parties dispute whether the court lacked jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76-a, there is no indication in the record that the court based its decision on that ground (see generally Matter of Recard v Polite, 21 AD3d 379 [2005]; Matter of Greenidge v Greenidge, 16 AD3d 583, 584 [2005]). We therefore reverse the order and remit the matter to Family Court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over the proceeding pursuant to section 76-a and, if so, whether New York would be an inconvenient forum based on the factors set forth in section 76-f. Present — Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Garni, Lindley and Sconiers, JJ.