Opinion
Argued September 2, 1987
Decided September 17, 1987
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Kenneth Shorter, J.
Peter L. Zimroth, Corporation Counsel (Trudi Mara Schleifer and Francis F. Caputo of counsel), for appellant.
Paul Frohman for Paul S., respondent.
Patricia Nevergold and Lenore Gittis for intervenor-respondent.
Pamela J.S., respondent pro se.
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, N Y Const, art VI, § 7; Family Ct Act §§ 114, 1013; Kagen v Kagen, 21 N.Y.2d 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 N.Y.2d 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 (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.