## Facts

- John B. Vanneck (husband) and Isabelle K. Vanneck (wife) married in New York in 1965 and lived there with their three children.
- The family also maintained a home in North Stamford, Connecticut, used regularly on weekends, summers, and vacations.
- In December 1978, during the children’s winter recess, Isabelle took the children to the Connecticut home and decided to remain there; the children began living in Connecticut and were enrolled in school there.
- On December 30, 1978, Isabelle filed a divorce action in Connecticut seeking dissolution, alimony, and custody.
- About two weeks later, John filed a divorce action in New York alleging cruelty or abandonment and seeking custody.
- John moved in New York to enjoin Isabelle from prosecuting the Connecticut action and sought temporary custody.
- New York Supreme Court (Special Term) applied New York’s UCCJA (Domestic Relations Law art. 5-A), concluded New York had the closest connection to the family, enjoined the Connecticut action, and awarded John temporary weekday custody.
- The Appellate Division modified, holding that because a Connecticut custody proceeding was pending and Connecticut had sufficient contacts, New York should defer and communicate with the Connecticut court rather than enjoin the foreign action.

## Issues

1. Whether New York, applying the UCCJA, could exercise custody jurisdiction when a custody proceeding was already pending in Connecticut.
2. Whether a New York court may enjoin prosecution of a pending out-of-state divorce/custody action without first determining whether the other state is exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with the UCCJA and without communicating with the other court.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division.
- The court held Special Term should not have enjoined the Connecticut action without following the UCCJA’s process for simultaneous interstate proceedings.
- Before acting to preempt the Connecticut case, New York was required to determine whether Connecticut was exercising jurisdiction substantially in conformity with the UCCJA and to communicate and cooperate with the Connecticut court regarding the appropriate forum.

## Legal Principles

- The UCCJA is designed to reduce interstate jurisdictional conflict in child custody disputes and to encourage interstate judicial cooperation.
- When a custody proceeding is pending in another state, the second state should not proceed to adjudication (or effectively preempt the first action) if the first state appears to be exercising jurisdiction in substantial conformity with the UCCJA.
- A court confronted with simultaneous proceedings must assess the other state’s jurisdictional basis under the Act and engage in intercourt communication to determine the proper forum.
- Historical contacts with the family may support jurisdiction, but they do not justify unilateral action where another state has significant current ties and a pending custody proceeding.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals required New York courts, under the UCCJA, to address simultaneous interstate custody proceedings through conformity analysis and direct communication with the other state’s court, rather than by enjoining the sister-state action based solely on New York’s asserted superior connections.


Vanneck v. Vanneck, 49 N.Y.2d 602, 404 N.E.2d 1278 (1980)