Brown v. Brown
| Decision Date | 29 June 1972 |
| Citation | 39 A.D.2d 897,334 N.Y.S.2d 1005 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Michelle BROWN, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Elmer J. BROWN and Jennie Brown, Respondents-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
J. N. Giamboi, New York City, for respondent.
G. I. Smiley, New York City, for appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Loreto, J.), entered on March 17, 1972, affirmed, without costs and without disbursements, on the opinion of Loreto, J.; order of said court entered on April 25, 1972 affirmed, without costs and without disbursements.
All concur except STEVENS, P.J., and MARKEWICH, J., who dissent, in part, in the following memorandum by MARKEWICH, J.:
I join in affirming Trial Term's action in quashing the arrest warrant, wilful disobedience to a court's mandate not having been established. I dissent otherwise. The majority, by affirming the assumption by Supreme Court, Bronx County, of jurisdiction over a custody case still under consideration in Franklin County, gives a gloss of propriety to the exercise of self-help by petitioner-respondent mother in having on her own brought the child to Bronx. Supreme Court, Franklin County, in awarding a divorce to petitioner-respondent's husband, had remanded the matter 'to the Family Court of the appropriate county for all matters pertaining to the custody of the child . . .' No final disposition has been made to date under that order. In this posture, it is at the least an inappropriate exercise of discretion for Supreme Court, Bronx County, to assume jurisdiction and determine custody merely because of the child's presence in Bronx County. I would return the matter to Family Court, Franklin County, whence it is being snatched, so as not to disturb control by Supreme Court, Franklin County, over its own case. If there is to be application for relief in derogation of that court's last order, it should be made there. We should no interfere with a disposition made by a court of concurrent jurisdiction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Proceeding for Support under Article 4 of the Family Court Act, Matter of
...Hospital v. Davis, 8 A.D.2d 361, 188 N.Y.S.2d 298 (1st Dept.); Brown v. Brown, 71 Misc.2d 818, 337 N.Y.S.2d 465, aff'd. 39 A.D.2d 897, 334 N.Y.S.2d 1005 (1st Dept.)) but a condition of the transfer. In any event, this Court's ruling as to the general dependency of support and visitation pro......
-
Balogh v. H. R. B. Caterers, Inc.
...Judge did here but must exercise such authority himself (cf. Matter of Brown v. Brown, 71 Misc.2d 818, 337 N.Y.S.2d 465, affd. 39 A.D.2d 897, 334 N.Y.S.2d 1005, app. dsmd. 31 N.Y.2d 956, 341 N.Y.S.2d 102, 293 N.E.2d 250; Matter of Nowakowski, 284 App.Div. 655, 133 N.Y.S.2d 842, reargument g......
-
Juan R. v. Necta V.
...75 (especially the dissenting op. per Mr. Justice Breitel); Matter of Brown v. Brown, 71 Misc.2d 818, 337 N.Y.S.2d 465, affd., 39 A.D.2d 897, 334 N.Y.S.2d 1005, app. dsmd., 31 N.Y.2d 956, 341 N.Y.S.2d 102, 293 N.E.2d 250; Matter of Anonymous v. Anonymous, 56 Misc.2d 711, 289 N.Y.S.2d 792; b......
-
Steven R.J. v. Nancy J.
...Court is statutory and limited. Brown v. Brown, 71 Misc.2d 818, 821, 337 N.Y.S.2d 465 (Sup.Ct., Bronx Co.) affirmed, 39 A.D.2d 897, 334 N.Y.S.2d 1005 (1st Dept.) appeal dismissed, 31 N.Y.2d 956, 341 N.Y.S.2d 102, 293 N.E.2d 250 (1972). The Supreme Court has been granted power to vest/divest......