Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Since the Uniform Support of Dependents Law (Domestic Relations Law art 3-A) provides an additional or alternate means of enforcing the petitioner's right to alimony (Domestic Relations Law § 41 [1]), the Family Court did not err in denying the husband's motion to dismiss this proceeding on the ground that another action was pending for the same relief (cf. Nichols v Bardua, 74 A.D.2d 566; Clay v. Clay, 54 A.D.2d 647). In addition, the court properly ruled that the denial of visitation would not be a defense to a Uniform Support of Dependents Law proceeding, where, as here, there exists no prior court order specifically fixing the terms of visitation (see, Griffin v. Griffin, 89 A.D.2d 310). Rather, the proper procedure would be for the husband to move for a determination of visitation rights in Tennessee, which has jurisdiction over the child (see, Griffin v. Griffin, supra; Matter of De Filipo v. De Filipo, 45 A.D.2d 710). Mollen, P.J., Gibbons, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.