New York does not have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the child support provisions contained in the parties' New York divorce judgment, since neither party nor the child any longer lives in New York (Family Ct Act § 580-205[a]). Any claims urging New York's exclusive jurisdiction that defendant made before a "Master" who issued a "Recommendation" in a prior, similar proceeding in another State do not warrant estopping defendant from asserting the statutory mandate that either the obligor, obligee or child live in New York. Nor should New York modify the child support provisions of its judgment where neither party nor the child has lived in New York since shortly after that judgment was entered in 1991 (see, Reichenbacher v. Reichenbacher, 1999 Pa. Super. 99, 729 A.2d 97). However, it does remain an appropriate exercise of jurisdiction for New York to enforce payment of the arrears that have accrued under those still unmodified provisions (Family Ct Act § 580-205[c]), and, in that respect, the motion to dismiss was properly denied.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.