Calendar Date: May 4, 2018Before: Garry, P.J., Egan Jr., Lynch, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ.__________Joch & Kirby, Ithaca (Susan C. Kirby of counsel), forappellant.Pamela B. Bleiwas, Ithaca, for respondent.Lucy Gold, Ithaca, attorney for the child.__________Garry, P.J.Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County(Cassidy, J.), entered May 8, 2017, which, in two proceedingspursuant to Family Ct Act articles 6 and 8, denied respondent’smotion to dismiss the petitions.Petitioner (hereinafter the mother) and respondent(hereinafter the father) are the parents of a child who was bornin Pennsylvania in June 2016. The parties lived together inPennsylvania from May 2016 to February 2017, when the motherrelocated with the child to the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County,allegedly to escape domestic violence. The mother filed apetition in Family Court seeking sole legal custody and an orderof protection against the father, as well as a family offensepetition pursuant to Family Ct Act article 8. The court issuedan interim order granting temporary sole legal and physicalcustody to the mother. The father moved to dismiss the petitionson the ground that New York lacked jurisdiction under the UniformChild Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (see DomesticRelations Law art 5-A [hereinafter UCCJEA]).Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania, the father filed petitions forcustody and for an expedited custody hearing. The mothersubmitted objections on the basis that the Pennsylvania court wasan inconvenient forum and moved for a stay pending the New Yorkproceedings. Family Court then conducted a telephone conferencewith the Pennsylvania court pursuant to Domestic Relations Law§ 76-e (2), in which the courts agreed that, although the child’shome state was Pennsylvania, New York was the more convenientforum. The Pennsylvania court issued orders that relinquishedjurisdiction to New York and dismissed the father’s custodyproceeding, and the father appealed from those orders inPennsylvania. In New York, Family Court issued a correspondingorder denying the father’s motion to dismiss and stating that itwould exercise jurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law§ 76 (1) (b). The father appeals from that order.1In February 2018, after this appeal had been perfected, thePennsylvania appellate court determined that the Pennsylvaniatrial court had not given the father the requisite opportunity topresent evidence and argument in conjunction with the telephoneconference, reversed the orders by which the Pennsylvania courthad declined jurisdiction, and remanded the matter for a newjurisdictional determination in which the parties are allowed tosubmit evidence (J.C. v K.C., 2018 Pa Super 29, 179 A3d 1124[2018]). It is undisputed that Pennsylvania was the child’s homestate pursuant to the UCCJEA when the proceedings were commenced(see Domestic Relations Law § 75-a [7]). Family Court exercisedjurisdiction pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 76 (1) (b),which provides, as pertinent here, that when New York is not achild’s home state, “a court of this state has jurisdiction tomake an initial child custody determination only if . . . a courtof the home state of the child has declined to exercisejurisdiction on the ground that this state is the moreappropriate forum under [Domestic Relations Law § 76-f or § 76-g]” (emphasis added), and certain other criteria are alsosatisfied. As a result of the reversal of the Pennsylvaniaorders that declined jurisdiction, the predicate upon whichFamily Court based its exercise of jurisdiction no longerexists.2“In general[,] an appeal will be considered moot unless therights of the parties will be directly affected by thedetermination of the appeal and the interest of the parties is animmediate consequence of the judgment” (Matter of Hearst Corp. vClyne, 50 NY2d 707, 714 [1980]). The new Pennsylvaniajurisdictional determination, and any determination that FamilyCourt may make thereafter, will determine the parties’ rights andinterests, which can no longer be affected by any determinationthis Court could make as to whether the earlier New Yorkjurisdictional order was properly issued. Thus, the appeal ismoot (see Matter of Cokely v Crocker, 157 AD3d 1033, 1034 [2018];Matter of Denise L. v Michael L., 151 AD3d 1205, 1206 [2017]).As the exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply (seeMatter of Hearst Corp. v Clyne, 50 NY2d at 714-715), the appealmust be dismissed.Egan Jr., Lynch, Mulvey and Rumsey, JJ., concur.ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, withoutcosts.ENTER:Robert D. MaybergerClerk of the Court
