Arroyo v. Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arroyo v. Thompson

63 A.D.3d 921, 880 N.Y.S.2d 540

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 16, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 921 (Arroyo v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arroyo v. Thompson, 63 A.D.3d 921, 880 N.Y.S.2d 540 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In two related child custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Burke, R.), dated March 28, 2008, as, after a hearing, denied that branch of her petition which was for permission to relocate to Ohio with the parties’ child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The record contains a sound and substantial basis for the Family Court’s denial of that branch of the mother’s petition which was for permission to relocate to Ohio with the parties’ child (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727 [1996]). The evidence did not demonstrate that relocation to Ohio was in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Said v Said, 61 AD3d 879 [2009]). Fisher, J.P., Dillon, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In two related child custody and visitation proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Burke, R.), dated March 28, 2008, as, after a hearing, denied that branch of her petition which was for permission to relocate to Ohio with the parties’ child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The record contains a sound and substantial basis for the Family Court’s denial of that branch of the mother’s petition which was for permission to relocate to Ohio with the parties’ child (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727 [1996]). The evidence did not demonstrate that relocation to Ohio was in the best interests of the child (see Matter of Said v Said, 61 AD3d 879 [2009]). Fisher, J.P., Dillon, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 921, 880 N.Y.S.2d 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arroyo-v-thompson-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack