New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Domestic Relations Law § 75 (2026)

Short title and statement of legislative intent

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 75. Short title and statement of legislative intent. 1. This article
may be cited as the "uniform child custody jurisdiction and enforcement
act".
  2. It is the intent of the legislature in enacting this article to
provide an effective mechanism to obtain and enforce orders of custody
and visitation across state lines and to do so in a manner that ensures
that the safety of the children is paramount and that victims of
domestic violence and child abuse are protected. It is further the
intent of the legislature that this article be construed so as to ensure
that custody and visitation by perpetrators of domestic violence or
homicide of a parent, legal custodian, legal guardian, sibling,
half-sibling or step-sibling of a child is restricted pursuant to
subdivision one-c of section two hundred forty of this chapter and
section one thousand eighty-five of the family court act.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Matter of Sayeh R., 693 N.E.2d 724 (NY 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Matter of Sayeh R., 693 N.E.2d 724 (NY 1997). · cites it 3× “Within the framework of the petition, record and authorities governing this case, New York should not interpose its adjudicative authority against the competence and efficacy of the Florida court that originally determined, and continues to possess and exert jurisdiction over…”

Ermini v. Vittori, 758 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2014). “Of course, should there be a future Italian custody order, neither parent would be without redress, but that redress would likely come in New York State court, pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, N.Y. Domestic Relations Law§§ 75 et seq.”

Steele v. Neeman, 6 P.3d 649 (Wyo. 2000). · cites it 2× “§ 20-5-104 (a)() (LEXIS 1999) (Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act) and N.Y. Domestic Relations Law § 75 -d.1(a) (McKinney 1999).”

Callahan v. Smith, 23 A.D.3d 957 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). “Indeed, the legislative history of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act makes clear that the expansion of the statute to include danger to a parent is reflective of “an increased awareness and understanding of domestic violence” (Sobie, Practice…”

Blerim M. v. Racquel M., 41 A.D.3d 306 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). “Petitioner’s papers in support of New York jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Domestic Relations Law § 75 et seq.) argued that there had been a change in circumstances since entry of the consent joint custody order in that respondent…”

In Re Marriage of Schoeffel, 644 N.E.2d 827 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). “New York has adopted the Act (N.Y. Domestic Relations Law § 75—a (McKinney 1988)), and thus could assume jurisdiction as the home State of the children.”

Eb v. Efb, 7 Misc. 3d 423 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2× “Few cases have yet to address the issue of the application of the newly enacted UCCJEA, which replaced the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) as of April 28, 2002 (Domestic Relations Law § 75; L 2001, ch 386; see generally W.”

Hector G. v. Josefina P., 2 Misc. 3d 801 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003). “” (Domestic Relations Law § 75 [2]; see also Sobie, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law art 5-A, 2004 Pocket Part, at 41.”

Levine v. Cnty. of Westchester, 828 F. Supp. 238 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). “Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, N.Y. Domestic Relations Law §§ 75 -a to 75-z (McKinney & Supp.”

Matter of Paul JJ. v. Heather JJ., 2020 NY Slip Op 3434 (N.Y. App. Div. 2020). “Contrary to this contention, in that case — decided long before the enactment of the UCCJEA, which was intended "to provide an effective mechanism to obtain and enforce orders of custody and visitation across state lines" (Domestic Relations Law § 75) — the Supreme Court…”

Perri v. Mariarossi, 172 A.D.2d 671 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991). · cites it 2× “), entered February 11, 1988, which denied her motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 75, is treated as a notice of appeal from the dispositional order (see, CPLR 5520 M).”

Malik v. Fhara, 97 A.D.3d 583 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). “*584 The Act was enacted, inter alia, to provide an effective mechanism to obtain and enforce orders of custody and visitation across state lines (see Domestic Relations Law § 75). Under the Act, specific and limited grounds are set forth to establish initial child custody…”

Show all 39 citing cases →

— N.Y. Domestic Relations Law § 75(2) — 1 case

Matter of Noel D. v. Gladys D., 2005 NY Slip Op 50092(U) (N.Y. Fam. Ct., Queens Cty. 2005).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.