We agree with the IAS Court that pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (Domestic Relations Law § 75-a et seq.), it possessed subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate custody of the parties' son since New York State was indisputably the "home state" of the child ( see, Domestic Relations Law § 75-c Dom. Rel. [5]) "at the time of the commencement of the custody proceeding" (Domestic Relations Law § 75-d [a]; see also, Grossman v. Meller, 213 A.D.2d 221, 224). We also agree with the IAS Court that pursuant to the Federal Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act ( 28 U.S.C. § 1738A), New York State Supreme Court has, since its original custody determination, retained continuing jurisdiction to adjudicate matters pertinent to the subject child's custody ( 28 U.S.C. § 1738A [c] [1]; [d]; see also, Matter of Mott v. Patricia Ann R., 91 N.Y.2d 856, 859-860), notwithstanding a relatively brief period during which the child was temporarily absent from New York ( see, 28 U.S.C. § 1738A [b] [4]), while his custodial parent, an actress, was performing in a production being filmed in Maryland.
We have reviewed defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.