Barnette v. Blair

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barnette v. Blair

57 A.D.3d 893, 870 N.Y.2d 409

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

DecidedDecember 23, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.3d 893 (Barnette v. Blair) 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

Barnette v. Blair, 57 A.D.3d 893, 870 N.Y.2d 409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The subject child was born on February 15, 1998 and by stip[894]*894ulation dated May 21, 2003 the parties agreed that the mother would have custody of the child, with liberal visitation to the father. Thereafter, the Family Court issued an order of custody and visitation entered April 6, 2007, which, in relevant part, directed the mother to relocate with the child to an address within a 40-mile radius of the father’s residence.

After the mother relocated with the child to a residence 39.9 miles from the father’s home, the Family Court found that the mother had failed to comply with the 40-mile radius provision in the order entered April 6, 2007. Upon this finding, the Family Court, in an order entered March 7, 2008 without a hearing, awarded custody of the child to the father.

The Family Court’s finding was erroneous and in contravention of its acknowledgment, in open court and in other orders of the same court, that the mother complied with the order entered April 6, 2007 by relocating to a residence within the 40-mile radius (see Potier v Potier, 198 AD2d 180 [1993]). Accordingly, the instant petition should have been denied and the proceeding should have been dismissed. Mastro, J.P., Miller, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.

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

The subject child was born on February 15, 1998 and by stip[894]*894ulation dated May 21, 2003 the parties agreed that the mother would have custody of the child, with liberal visitation to the father. Thereafter, the Family Court issued an order of custody and visitation entered April 6, 2007, which, in relevant part, directed the mother to relocate with the child to an address within a 40-mile radius of the father’s residence.

After the mother relocated with the child to a residence 39.9 miles from the father’s home, the Family Court found that the mother had failed to comply with the 40-mile radius provision in the order entered April 6, 2007. Upon this finding, the Family Court, in an order entered March 7, 2008 without a hearing, awarded custody of the child to the father.

The Family Court’s finding was erroneous and in contravention of its acknowledgment, in open court and in other orders of the same court, that the mother complied with the order entered April 6, 2007 by relocating to a residence within the 40-mile radius (see Potier v Potier, 198 AD2d 180 [1993]). Accordingly, the instant petition should have been denied and the proceeding should have been dismissed. Mastro, J.P., Miller, Angiolillo and Garni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 893, 870 N.Y.2d 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnette-v-blair-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack