56 N.Y.2d 619 (1982)
An appellate court’s reversal of a lower court’s discretionary decision regarding child custody jurisdiction will be upheld if the appellate court does not abuse its own discretion in substituting its judgment, even if there was a potential legal error in the initial reversal.
Summary
In this child custody case, the Family Court accepted jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA). The Appellate Division reversed, stating both legal error and factual grounds for reversing the decision. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision. Even if the Appellate Division erred in its legal analysis of the Family Court’s jurisdiction, its independent discretionary decision to reject jurisdiction was proper. The Court of Appeals deferred to the Appellate Division’s exercise of discretion, concluding its review was complete. This case underscores the broad discretion afforded to appellate courts in family law matters involving jurisdictional determinations.
Facts
The essential facts are not explicitly stated in the brief memorandum decision, but it can be inferred that the Family Court made a determination to exercise jurisdiction over a child custody matter. The Appellate Division subsequently reviewed this decision.
Procedural History
The Family Court accepted jurisdiction over a child custody matter. The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court’s decision, citing both legal and factual grounds. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division abused its discretion when it reversed the Family Court’s decision to accept jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, even if its initial legal basis for reversal was potentially flawed?
Holding
No, because the Appellate Division reversed on both legal and factual grounds, and the Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion by the Appellate Division in substituting its own judgment on the facts. The Court of Appeals held that it would not interfere with the Appellate Division’s exercise of discretion in this matter.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals grounded its decision in the principle of appellate deference to discretionary decisions, particularly within the context of family law. The court emphasized that the Appellate Division had explicitly reversed