DISMISSAL ORDER ON MOTION # 1 The parties are divorced and have one child-in-common, Priya D. (hereinafter “Priya” or “subject child”). On April 12, 2022, the mother, Premvadee D. (hereinafter “Mother” or “Ms. D.”), filed a modification petition against the father, Prateek D. (hereinafter “Father” or “Mr. D.”). See Petition for Modification of an Order of Support Made by Another Court (D., 03/31/2022), Nassau County Family Court Docket Number F-02657-22/22A. On that same date, Ms. D. filed a support petition against Mr. D.. See Support Petition (D., 03/31/2022), Nassau County Family Court Docket Number F-02711-22. Ms. D. seeks to modify the child support provisions of the parties’ California orders or, in the alternative, a de novo order directing Mr. D. to pay child support for Priya until she turns twenty-one years of age. On May 23, 2022, Mr. D. filed a motion to dismiss. See Not. Motion to Dismiss Support Petition (Gupta, 05/20/2022), Nassau County Family Court Docket Numbers F-02657-22/22A, F- 02711-22; see also Aff. in Supp. of Mot. (Gupta, 05/20/2022), Nassau County Family Court Docket Numbers F-02657-22/22A, F-02711-22; Resp’t's Statement in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss (D., 05/20/2022), Nassau County Family Court Docket Numbers F-02657-22/22A, F-02711-22. Mr. D. maintains that California has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the parties so New York may not entertain Ms. D.’s petitions. On June 3, 2022, Ms. D. filed opposition papers. See Aff. in Opp’n. (D., 06/03/2022), Nassau County Family Court Docket Numbers F-02657-22/22A, F-02711-22; see also Aff. in Opp’n. (Butt, 06/02/2022), Nassau County Family Court Docket Numbers F-02657-22/22A, F-02711-22. She argued that since Priya is turning eighteen years of age in June, California will no longer have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction and New York may hear her petitions, and issue a child support order. See id. On June 10, 2022, Mr. D. filed reply papers. See Reply Aff. (Gupta, 06/09/2022), Nassau County Family Court Docket Numbers F-02657-22/22A, F-02711-22. On that same date, the motion was marked submit. Having considered the parties’ papers, counsel’s arguments, and the law, the Court’s determination follows: A party to a family court action may file a motion to dismiss under the theory that the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. See N.Y. C.P.L.R. §3211(a)(2) (McKinney’s 2022); see also N.Y. FAM. CT. ACT §165(a) (McKinney’s 2022) (FCA adopts and applies CPLR where FCA is silent). A court is required to dismiss petitions where subject matter jurisdiction is absent. See e.g. Adams v. Pilarte, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2506, at *1 (1st Dep’t 2022) (action properly dismissed where Federal court had exclusive jurisdiction); Ladder Capital Fin. LLC v. Portfolio Hotels, LLC, 198 A.D.3d 482, 483 (1st Dep’t 2021) (court lacked subject matter jurisdiction where agreement obligated parties to litigate in California, not in New York, and apply North Carolina law); Nassau Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Ablog, 194 A.D.3d 817, 819 (2d Dep’t 2021) (finding petition should have been dismissed where Florida retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over child support action); Criscuola v. State of N.Y., 188 A.D.3d 645, 646 (2d Dep’t 2020) (upholding dismissal grounded in want of subject matter jurisdiction since failure to comply with filing requirements deprived court of such jurisdiction); Klingsberg v. Council of Sch. Supervisors & Admi’rs-Local 1, 181 A.D.3d 949, 950 (2d Dep’t 2020) (affirming subject matter jurisdiction dismissal where cause of action preempted by Federal law). Since the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Ms. D.’s petitions, the Court hereby grants Mr. D.’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as will be explained more fully hereinafter: Parents have an obligation to contribute to the economic well-being of their children. See e.g. Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478, 482 (1990) (child support is legally compulsory payments by one parent to another towards expenses of children borne of a marriage); Matter of H.M. v. E.T., 14 N.Y.3d 521, 527 (2010); Thomas B. v. Lydia. D., 69 A.D.3d 24, 27-9 (1st Dep’t 2009). In New York, child support obligations continue until a child turns twenty-one years old, or emancipates themselves through marriage, military service, a job that causes them to be self-supporting, or they constructively emancipate by withdrawing from parental supervision and control. See N.Y. FAM. CT. ACT §413 (1)(a) (McKinney’s 2022); see also Thomas B., 69 A.D.3d at 27-9; Bogin v. Goodrich, 265 A.D.2d 779, 781 (3d Dep’t 1999) (citing cases). Whereas, in California, the age of majority is eighteen years of age. See Cal. Fam. Code §6500 (Deering 2022) (minor is individual under 18 years old); see also Cal. Fam. Code §6501 (Deering 2022) (adult is individual 18 years old or older). In that state, child support obligations continue until a child emancipates through marriage, age, completion of high school, or self-support, which first occurs. See Cal. Fam. Code §3900 (Deering 2022) (parents equally liable for support of minor children); see also Cal. Fam. Code §3901 (Deering 2022) (setting forth parents’ duration of duty to provide support). Parents may agree to extend support beyond California’s age of majority by entering into a stipulated agreement which the California Family Court may approve. See Cal. Fam. Code §3901(b) (Deering 2022) (continuation of child support for adult child); see also Cal. Fam. Code §3587 (Deering 2022) (court order to effectuate agreement for support of adult child). On August 21, 2007, the parties were divorced in California. See Judgment (Proulx, J., 08/21/2007), San Bernardino County Case No. VFLVS037807. Mr. D.’s child support obligation for Priya was ordered to be $677.00 monthly “until [sic] child dies, marries, becomes emancipated, reaches the age of 18 or reaches the age of 19 and is a full-time high school student, or until further order of the Court, whichever first occurs.” Id. On April 23, 2008, Mr. D.’s child support obligation was modified to be $1,053.00 monthly. See Order after H’rg (Proulx, J., 07/21/2008), San Bernardino County Case No. VFLVS037807. At no time have the parties agreed in writing to extend Mr. D.’s child support obligation beyond California’s age of majority. A state issuing an order loses continuing, exclusive jurisdiction where all of the parties and children no longer reside there, or all of the parties file their written consent, or agree in open court, for another state to assume such jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.S. §1738B(d) (2022); see also Spencer v. Spencer, 10 N.Y.3d 60, 66 (2008) (“[T]he state issuing a child support order retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction…so long as an individual contestant continues to reside in the issuing state.”); Zagarino v. McLean, 154 A.D.3d 769, 769 (2d Dep’t 2017); Batesole-Harmer v. Batesole, 28 A.D.3d 551, 551 (2d Dep’t 2006); Hutchison v. Pirro, 11 A.D.3d 465, 466 (2d Dep’t 2004). Mr. D. still resides in California. No proof was presented establishing that all of the parties consented to New York jurisdiction. Thus, California retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. See 28 U.S.C.S. §1738B (2022) (Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act); see also 42 U.S.C. §666 (2022) (Uniform Interstate Family Support Act);1 N.Y. FAM. CT. ACT §580-205 (McKinney’s 2022) (setting forth when New York may and may not exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify support order); Spencer, 10 N.Y.3d at 66 (no New York subject matter jurisdiction; since father continued to reside in Connecticut, where child support order was issued); Salim v. Freeman, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS, at *3 (2d Dep’t 2022) (where father lived in Virginia, New York had no subject matter jurisdiction to modify Virginia order); Nassau Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Ablog, 194 A.D.3d 817, 819 (2d Dep’t 2021) (despite termination of obligations under Florida order, Florida retained continuing, exclusive jurisdiction and New York had no subject matter jurisdiction to modify); Helmeyer v. Setzer, 173 A.D.3d 740, 742-43 (2d Dep’t 2019) (in custody case, New York not divested of exclusive, continuing jurisdiction even though child and one parent no longer lived in state); Pauls v. Neathery, 149 A.D.3d 950, 952 (2d Dep’t 2017) (affirming New York enforcement disposition; no proof that issuing state, New York, lost its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction). Compare Gowda v. Reddy, 105 A.D.3d 957, 958 (2d Dep’t 2013) (finding New York authority to modify Pennsylvania order, registered in New York, where parties no longer resided in Pennsylvania, father resided in New York, and mother did not reside in New York). Accordingly, this Court lacks the necessary subject matter jurisdiction to proceed on either of Ms. D.’s petitions. See id. In that regard, 28 U.S.C.S §1738B(b)(8) defines the term modification 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 U.S.C.S. §1738B(b)(8); see also Spencer, 10 N.Y.3d at 67; Salim, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS, at *3; Nassau Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Ablog, 194 A.D.3d at 819. Consequently, Ms. D.’s petition for a de novo support order is actually a modification application. See 28 U.S.C.S. §1738B(b)(8) (defining modification for purposes of full faith and credit for child support orders); see also Spencer, 10 N.Y.3d at 67 (“[A] subsequent child support order is a ‘modification’ as defined by the federal statute.”); Salim, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS, at *3 (finding father’s New York support petition was modification petition regarding parties’ Virginia order); Nassau Cty. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Ablog, 194 A.D.3d at 819 (holding de novo application for New York support order was considered modification of Florida judgment). Affording full faith and credit to the parties’ California orders, this Court is constrained to dismiss both of Ms. D.’s petitions with prejudice. Ms. D.’s argument that she and her daughter were New York residents since 2007 when the parties’ divorce judgment was entered is of no moment. If Ms. D. was concerned with the time period during which Priya would be entitled to child support, Ms. D. could have argued whether California was the proper forum prior to entering into their California “stipulated judgment.” Judgment, p. 1 (Proulx, J., 08/21/2007), San Bernardino County Case No. VFLVS037807. Ms. D.’s remaining contentions are without merit. ADJUDGED, that since California retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over Ms. D.’s claims, New York lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate her petitions; and it is therefore, ORDERED, that Mr. D.’s motion to dismiss is hereby granted in part and denied in part; and it is further; ORDERED, that Mr. D.’s application to dismiss Ms. D.’s petitions is hereby granted; and, it is further; ORDERED, that Mr. D.’s application to vacate the registration of Ms. D.’s California orders is hereby denied; and it is further, ORDERED, that Mr. D.’s application for monetary sanctions is hereby denied; and it is further, ORDERED, that Mr. D.’s application for reimbursement for expenses he incurred, in connection with what he characterizes as Ms. D.’s personal service of him using deceptive practices, is hereby denied; and it is further, ORDERED, that Ms. D.’s petitions are hereby dismissed with prejudice. YOUR WILLFUL FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY, AFTER COURT HEARING, RESULT IN YOUR COMMITMENT TO JAIL FOR A TERM NOT TO EXCEED SIX MONTHS FOR CRIMINAL NON-SUPPORT OR CONTEMPT OF COURT; YOUR FAILURE TO OBEY THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN SUSPENSION OF YOUR DRIVER’S LICENSES, STATE ISSUED PROFESSIONAL, TRADE, BUSINESS AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSES AND RECREATIONAL AND SPORTING LICENSES AND PERMITS; AND IMPOSITION OF REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY LIENS. PURSUANT TO SECTION 1113 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AN APPEAL MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY APPELLANT IN COURT, 35 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF MAILING OF THE ORDER TO APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF COURT, OR 30 DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR THE ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD UPON APPELLANT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST. Check applicable box: Order mailed on [specify date(s) and to whom mailed]: Order received in court on [specify date(s) and to whom given Dated: June 10, 2022
