Paul B. S. v. Pamela J. S.
Paul B. S. v. Pamela J. S., Legal Aid Society, as Law Guardian for Jessica S., an Infant, Intervenor-Respondent In the Matter of Paul B. S., as Father of Jessica S., an Infant v. Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, and Pamela J. S., Respondents In the Matter of Jessica S., an Infant. Paul B. S., Respondent Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Supreme Court’s concurrent jurisdiction over child abuse proceedings is unaffected by the grant of "exclusive original jurisdiction” to Family Court over such proceedings (see, NY Const, art VI, § 7; Family Ct Act §§ 114, 1013; Kagen v Kagen, 21 NY2d 532, 538 ). The question remains, however, whether Supreme Court abused its discretion as a matter of law in exercising its concurrent jurisdiction in the instant case (see, Kagen v Kagen, supra, at 538; see also, Herrick v Second Cuthouse, 64 NY2d 692, 693 ). Here, before the commencement of the separate abuse/neglect proceeding in Family Court, the matrimonial action had been commenced in Supreme Court, an extensive pendente lite hearing on child custody had been held, and psychiatric examinations had been ordered and completed. We conclude, under these circumstances, that Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law in ordering consolidation of the two proceedings *742 (CPLR 602 [b]) and exercising its concurrent jurisdiction over the abuse/neglect proceeding. Nor did Family Court, considering the circumstances in these consolidated proceedings, abuse its discretion as a matter of law in failing to conduct a dispositional hearing under Family Court Act § 1047. Appellant’s remaining arguments are without merit.
Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified answered in the affirmative.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 20 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.