Grossnickle, In re
| Decision Date | 23 June 1960 |
| Citation | 25 Misc.2d 454,211 N.Y.S.2d 359 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Arthur A. GROSSNICKLE, Respondent. Children's Court, Jefferson County |
| Court | New York Children's Court |
William H. Quimby, Jr., Asst. County Atty., Watertown, for petitioner.
Robert B. Shaad, Watertown, for respondent.
This is a proceeding under the Uniform Support of Dependents Law, Article 3A Domestic Relations Law.
This proceeding was initiated in the Superior Court, Hancock County, Maine.
The papers forwarded to the Court include the petition and a Certificate by the Court and three copies of the Maine Law as required.
The respondent was served personally within the County of Jefferson and appeared personally and by his attorney in Court.
The respondent by Notice of Motion objects to the jurisdiction of this Court on the following grounds.
1. The Certificate signed by Hon. James P. Archibald, Justice of the Superior Court, is insufficient in that it is not dated.
2. The Certificate fails to certify that a summons was issued in the State of Maine or, failing that, that a statement setting forth reasons for the omission to issue such a summons with evidence supporting such reasons.
3. That the petition is insufficient in that it fails to show the circumstances of the petitioner or any facts indicating the need for support.
4. That the petition is insufficient in that it does not state with whom or where the children reside.
The Court has been unable to find, and the parties have failed to call to the Court's attention any statute or decision that holds that a Certificate is invalid because it is undated.
A date on this Certificate in this particular proceeding is not of the essence.
The first objection is overruled.
The third and fourth objections are overruled on the ground that the petition prima facially sets forth sufficient facts to give this Court jurisdiction, and if controverted on the trial, further proof can be taken.
With regard to objection number two, it is necessary to construe the meaning of Section 37, Sub. 3 of the Domestic Relations Law of the State of New York, and Section 7 of Chapter 167 Maine Revised Laws of 1954, called the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act.
Section 30 of the New York Statute states the purpose of the Act. 'The purpose of this article is to secure support in civil proceedings for dependent wives, children and poor relatives from persons legally responsible for their support.'
Section 1 of the Maine Act states, 'The purposes of this chapter are to improve and extend by reciprocal legislation the enforcement of duties of support, and to make uniform the law with respect thereto.' The objection raised by respondent in objection number four is, that the Maine Court did not issue a summons and make an attempt to serve it on the respondent in Maine or certify reasons for the omission.
Section 37, Sub. 3 of the New York Statute in substance states that if the respondent be not a resident of or domiciled in or cannot be found in the initiating state, the Judge of such Court shall certify, that a summons duly issued out of his Court for service upon the respondent has been returned with an affidavit to the effect that respondent cannot with due diligence be located or served with such process in the initiating state, that the respondent is believed to be residing or domiciled in the responding state----
In the event that the Court shall have before it satisfactory evidence that the respondent is not within the initiating state or cannot be served with process there, the summons and affidavit required herein may be omitted and the Certificate shall contain a statement of the reasons for said omissions and...
To continue reading
Request your trial