IN RE: Mark ISENBERG (2024)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5–B, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Rachel E. Tanguay, J.), dated July 20, 2023.  The order, insofar as appealed from, (1) in effect, upon reargument, adhered to a prior determination in an order of the same court dated April 12, 2023, denying the father's objection to so much of an order of the same court (Patricia Brimais–Tenemille, S.M.) dated February 14, 2023, as dismissed that branch of his petition which was to modify a judgment of divorce of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, dated June 4, 2019, so as to award him child support for one of the parties' children, and (2) directed the father to seek permission from the court before filing any additional petitions for a period of one year from the date of entry of the order.

ORDERED that the order dated July 20, 2023, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The parties were divorced in June 2019 by a judgment of divorce of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, which incorporated a memorandum of understanding and a custody and parenting plan (hereinafter collectively the New Jersey judgment).  The father subsequently commenced this proceeding in the Family Court, Rockland County, seeking, inter alia, to modify the New Jersey judgment so as to award him child support for one of the parties' children.  In an order dated February 14, 2023, the Support Magistrate dismissed the father's petition, and the father filed objections to the Support Magistrate's order.  In an order dated April 12, 2023, the Family Court, among other things, denied the father's objection to so much of the Support Magistrate's order as dismissed that branch of the petition which was to modify the New Jersey judgment so as to award him child support for one of the parties' children on the ground that the New Jersey court had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the matter.

In an order dated July 20, 2023, the Family Court, in effect, granted that branch of the father's motion which was for leave to reargue his aforementioned objection, and, upon reargument, adhered to its prior determination denying that objection.  Additionally, the court directed the father to seek permission from the court before filing any additional petitions for a period of one year from the date of entry of the order.  The father appeals.

Under the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act and the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, “the state issuing a child support order retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over its child support orders so long as an individual contestant continues to reside in the issuing state” (Matter of Spencer v. Spencer, 10 N.Y.3d 60, 66, 853 N.Y.S.2d 274, 882 N.E.2d 886;  see 28 USC § 1738B[d];  Matter of Salim v. Freeman, 204 A.D.3d 677, 678, 163 N.Y.S.3d 844;  cf.  Family Ct Act § 580–205).  “[A] state may modify the issuing state's order of child support only when the issuing state has lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction” (Matter of Spencer v. Spencer, 10 N.Y.3d at 66, 853 N.Y.S.2d 274, 882 N.E.2d 886;  see 28 USC § 1738B[e];  Matter of Salim v. Freeman, 204 A.D.3d at 678, 163 N.Y.S.3d 844).  In this context, a “modification” is defined to mean “a change in a child support order that affects the amount, scope, or duration of the order and modifies, replaces, supersedes, or otherwise is made subsequent to the child support order” (28 USC § 1738B[b][8];  see Matter of Spencer v. Spencer, 10 N.Y.3d at 67, 853 N.Y.S.2d 274, 882 N.E.2d 886;  Matter of Salim v. Freeman, 204 A.D.3d at 678, 163 N.Y.S.3d 844;  Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Ablog, 194 A.D.3d 817, 818, 149 N.Y.S.3d 109).

The record reflects that the father is a permanent resident of the State of New Jersey.  Therefore, the Family Court correctly determined that New Jersey retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the New Jersey judgment, and New York does not have jurisdiction to modify it (see Matter of Salim v. Freeman, 204 A.D.3d at 678–679, 163 N.Y.S.3d 844;  Matter of Nassau County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Ablog, 194 A.D.3d at 819, 149 N.Y.S.3d 109).  Accordingly, the court, in effect, upon reargument, properly adhered to its prior determination denying the father's objection to so much of the Support Magistrate's order as dismissed that branch of the father's petition which was to modify the New Jersey judgment.

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Family Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the father to seek permission from the court before filing any additional petitions for a period of one year from the date of entry of the order appealed from (see Matter of Manwani v. Manwani, 286 A.D.2d 767, 768, 730 N.Y.S.2d 520).

BARROS, J.P., MALTESE, WARHIT and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.