New York Supreme and/or Appellate Courts SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, SECOND DEPARTMENT, 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
August 7, 2012
Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Eugene H. Shifrin, Ct. Atty. Ref.), entered January 18, 2011.
Rybakov v Konashenko
Appellate Term, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.
Decided on August 7, 2012
PRESENT: LaCAVA, J.P., NICOLAI and LaSALLE, JJ
The judgment, insofar as appealed from, after a non-jury trial, dismissed plaintiff's cause of action.
ORDERED that the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, without costs.
Plaintiff commenced this small claims action to recover the sum of $735.45, which he claimed he was owed pursuant to an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Paula J. Hepner, J.), dated August 16, 2005, made in an action captioned Larisa Konashenko v Artem Rybakov. The order pertained to the reimbursement of travel expenses plaintiff would incur on behalf of the parties' son, during their son's minority. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, the District Court, after a non-jury trial, determined that substantial justice required the dismissal of plaintiff's cause of action.
Without reaching the issues of whether plaintiff had adequately proven his expenses, or whether, either under a prior stipulation of settlement between the parties or for substantive reasons under the terms of the August 16, 2005 Family Court order, plaintiff was barred from recovering his expenses, we conclude that, because the sums sought to be recovered herein pertain to child support (see Family Court Act § 413  [b] ), this dispute falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court (see Family Court Act § 411) and the Supreme Court (see Kagen v Kagen, 21 NY2d 532 ; see also Family Court Act § 114; 46 NY Jur 2d, Domestic Relations § 1020). Moreover, since plaintiff sought enforcement of a Family Court support order, the Family Court had continuing jurisdiction (see Family Court Act § 451), despite the fact that the parties' son had attained his majority (see Matter of Layne G.G. v Kevin P.D., 8 Misc 3d 857 [Fam Ct, Ulster County 2005]). As the issues presented were not subject to adjudication in the District Court, we do not disturb the District Court's dismissal of plaintiff's cause of action.
Accordingly, the judgment, insofar as appealed from, is affirmed, albeit on other grounds.
LaCava, J.P., Nicolai and LaSalle, JJ., concur. Decision Date: August 07, 2012
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.