PEOPLE EX REL. GUPTA v. GUPTA

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly exercised jurisdiction in this matter ( see Domestic Relations Law §§ 76, 76-g; Vanneck v Vanneck, 49 NY2d 602, 609-610; Matter of Persaud v Persaud, 293 AD2d 480).

The father contends that his habeas corpus petition ( see Domestic Relations Law § 70) should have been granted based on an award of custody he obtained in Sriganganagar, Rajasthan, India. An order of an Indian court in a matter over which that court properly exercised its jurisdiction is entitled to the same recognition as an order from any state of the United States ( see Domestic Relations Law § 75-d). Here, however, since the Indian court did not have jurisdiction over the matter, the Supreme Court was not required to enforce the resulting order ( see Domestic Relations Law § 76-e; § 77-b [1]; Matter of Wilber v Buelow, 136 AD2d 786; cf. Matter of Calvo v Herring, 51 AD3d 916). The father's petition was therefore properly denied.