People of State of New York ex rel. Burke v. Burke

CourtNew York County Court
Writing for the CourtWILLIAM W. SERRA
Citation262 N.Y.S.2d 613,47 Misc.2d 276
Decision Date11 August 1965
PartiesPeople of the State of New York ex rel. Raymond BURKE, Petitioner, v. Joan BURKE, Respondent.

Page 613

262 N.Y.S.2d 613
47 Misc.2d 276
People of the State of New York ex rel. Raymond BURKE, Petitioner,
v.
Joan BURKE, Respondent.
Allegany County Court.
Aug. 11, 1965.

[47 Misc.2d 277] Louis C. Zannieri, Hornell, for petitioner.

Henry R. Burke, Hornell, for respondent.

WILLIAM W. SERRA, Judge.

Application is made by the Petitioner herein for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, returnable in the County Court, County of Allegany. The application is for a determination of visitation rights for the Petitioner to visit his two infant children John and James Burke. The Petition alleges that

Page 614

the children are presently in the custody of the Respondent pursuant to the terms of a separation agreement under which custody is placed with the Respondent and visitation rights granted to the Petitioner. Said visitation rights in the Petition are defined as 'liberal visitation rights.' This is, therefore, a petition concerning custody of the children as to which jurisdiction rests at common law in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, as per parens patria. (Application of Chapin, 1942, 264 App.Div. 172, 35 N.Y.S.2d 302, Ex Parte Rich, 1938, 254 App.Div. 6, 3 N.Y.S.2d 689). Jurisdiction in this Court for the Petition of Writ of Habeas Corpus must, therefore, be found specifically in statute to entitle Petitioner to the issuance of the writ.

It is contended by the Petitioner that the provision of Article 70 of the Civil Practice Act provides such jurisdiction. This Court finds otherwise. The substantive jurisdiction provided in Article 70 is defined in Section 7002(a) CPLR, and is in respect to the unlawful imprisonment or restraint of persons found in the State of New York. The question of jurisdiction of the issue of custody of children, including the division of custody, '* * * under such regulations and restrictions, and with such provisions and directions, as the case may require * * *' as provided in Section 70 of the Domestic Relations Law is particularly therein specified to be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme [47 Misc.2d 278] Court of the State of New York. The law is well settled that this jurisdiction is exclusive and does not vest in the County Court. People ex rel. Rhoades v. Humphreys, 1857, 24 Barb. 521. See, also, People ex rel. Parr v. Parr, 1888, 49 Hun 473, 2 N.Y.S. 263, affirmed 121 N.Y 679, 24 N.E. 481; People ex rel. Williams v. Corey, 1887, 46 Hun 408, 12 N.Y.St.R. 411; People ex rel. Hoyle v. Osborne,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT