| Matter of Csorba v Renzi |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 07169 [77 AD3d 660] |
| October 5, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Alan Csorba, Appellant, v Denise Renzi,Respondent. |
—[*1] Barry Elisofon, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
In related custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the fatherappeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (Oakes, Ct. Atty. Ref.), dated April 5,2010, which dismissed his petition to modify certain provisions and to enforce other provisions of thevisitation portions of a prior order of the same court dated February 4, 2009.
Ordered that the order dated April 5, 2010, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The father was collaterally estopped from raising the issue of subject matter jurisdiction before theFamily Court (see Domestic Relations Law § 76 et seq.). In disposing of a priorcustody modification petition filed by the father eight months before the instant petition, the FamilyCourt determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and dismissed that petition in an order datedAugust 20, 2009 (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-a [1] [a]), from which the fatherdid not appeal. The issues raised in the prior petition are identical to those raised in the instant petition.Moreover, the father did not allege any changed circumstance as of the date that the Family Courtrendered its prior determination that would affect the Family Court's subject matter jurisdiction, and thefather had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. Accordingly, the father was collaterallyestopped from again raising the issue of subject matter jurisdiction before the Family Court (seeBuechel v Bain, 97 NY2d 295, 303-304 [2001], cert denied 535 US 1096 [2002]; Westchester County Correction OfficersBenevolent Assn., Inc. v County of Westchester, 65 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2009]). Dillon, J.P.,Florio, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.