Birdsall v. Melita
| Decision Date | 15 April 1999 |
| Citation | 688 N.Y.S.2d 283,260 A.D.2d 809 |
| Parties | MICHELE BIRDSALL, Individually and as Mother and Guardian of JOSEPH S. MELITA et al., Infants, Appellant,<BR>v.<BR>ANTHONY J. MELITA, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur.
In 1978, plaintiff and defendant were married in New York and lived here briefly. While residing in Pennsylvania, they ultimately entered into a written settlement agreement, dated April 11, 1986, which survived their judgment of divorce and addressed, inter alia, issues of child support and medical expenses for their two children, both born outside of New York. Shortly after their divorce in 1986, plaintiff relocated with the children to New York and respondent moved to Virginia. Although not in the record before us, it appears undisputed that a child support order was entered in Virginia and that defendant had consistently made payments in such State which were received by petitioner in New York. It is further undisputed that defendant maintains regular and frequent communication and visitation with his children in New York.
Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the children, commenced this action contending that defendant breached various provisions of their settlement agreement in that he failed to provide the children with health insurance coverage since 1992, failed to provide proof that the children have been named as sole beneficiaries on his life insurance policy, failed to increase child support[*] in accordance with the increase in the consumer price index, and failed to pay the children's unreimbursed medical expenses. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, contending that the requirements of CPLR 302 (a) cannot be met and that jurisdiction cannot be derived from CPLR 302 (b) because New York is not the matrimonial domicile. Supreme Court granted defendant's motion and this appeal ensued.
We reject any contention that this matter is governed by the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (Family Ct Act art 5-B) since plaintiff does not seek to establish, enforce or modify a support order. Sufficient minimum contacts with this State must be found in order to exercise long-arm jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to CPLR 302 (a) so that "`"traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice"' were not offended" (Levy v Levy, 185 AD2d 15, 18, appeal dismissed 82 NY2d 707, quoting International Shoe Co. v Washington, 326 US 310, 316, quoting Milliken v Meyer, 311 US 457, 463). Obligated to view all of the facts pertaining to defendant's exercise of his rights pursuant to the terms and conditions of the agreement, not merely the location of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowman v. Bowman
...98 S.Ct. 1690; Matter of Hauger v. Hauger, 275 A.D.2d 953, 953-954, 713 N.Y.S.2d 425, 275 A.D.2d 953 [2000]; Birdsall v. Melita, 260 A.D.2d 809, 810-811, 688 N.Y.S.2d 283 [1999], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 812, 695 N.Y.S.2d 541, 717 N.E.2d 700 [1999] ), respondent also invoked the aid of the New ......
-
Crosby v. Crosby
...him (cf. Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., City & County of San Francisco, 436 U.S. at 92–95, 98 S.Ct. 1690 ; Birdsall v. Melita, 260 A.D.2d 809, 810–811, 688 N.Y.S.2d 283 [1999], lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 812, 695 N.Y.S.2d 541, 717 N.E.2d 700 [1999] ; Klette v. Klette, 167 A.D.2d 197, 198–199, 56......
-
Liddle v. Liddle
...“ (Senhart v. Senhart, 4 Misc.3d 862, affd. 18 AD3d 642, 795 N.Y.S.2d 642 (N.Y.App. Div.2d Dep't 2005), quoting Birdsall v. Melita, 260 A.D.2d 809, 810, 688 N.Y.S.2d 283 [1999], lv. denied 93 N.Y.2d 812, 717 N.E.2d 700, 695 N.Y.S.2d 541 [1999], quoting Levy v. Levy, 185 A.D.2d 15, 18, 592 N......
- MATTER OF VUKEL v. NEW YORK WATER & SEWER MAINS, INC.
-
Expert witnesses
...physician) may not rely on the report of another physician if the report has not been independently admitted. Freitag v. New York Times , 260 A.D.2d 809, 687 N.Y.S.2d 809 (3d Dept. 1999). An expert who had no personal knowledge of the facts could not rely on informal conversations with peop......
-
Expert witnesses
...physician) may not rely on the report of another physician if the report has not been independently admitted. Freitag v. New York Times , 260 A.D.2d 809, 687 N.Y.S.2d 809 (3d Dept. 1999). An expert who had no personal knowledge of the facts could not rely on informal conversations with peop......
-
Expert witnesses
...orthopedist if that report is the sole source of the expert’s opinion on the central issue of causation. Freitag v. New York Times , 260 A.D.2d 809, 687 N.Y.S.2d 809 (3d Dept. 1999). An expert who had no personal knowledge of the facts could not rely on informal conversations with people in......
-
Expert witnesses
...physician) may not rely on the report of another physician if the report has not been independently admitted. Freitag v. New York Times , 260 A.D.2d 809, 687 N.Y.S.2d 809 (3d Dept. 1999). An expert who had no personal knowledge of the facts could not rely on informal conversations with peop......