Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, upon the defendant's cross motion and upon reviewing the appropriate factors, in declining to exercise jurisdiction over that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to modify a prior custody order on the ground that New York is an inconvenient forum and that California is a more appropriate forum (see Domestic Relations Law § 76-f; Matter of Erlec v Johnson, 58 AD3d 730; Matter of Hall v Hall, 44 AD3d 771; Clark v Clark, 21 AD3d 1326).
The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit.