Belbol v. Stevenson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Belbol v. Stevenson

23 A.D.3d 555, 805 N.Y.S.2d 90

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

DecidedNovember 21, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 23 A.D.3d 555 (Belbol v. Stevenson) 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

Belbol v. Stevenson, 23 A.D.3d 555, 805 N.Y.S.2d 90 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Marks, J.), dated September 1, 2004, which, without a hearing, denied her application to modify a prior order of the same court (Koenig, J.), dated April 21, 2001, awarding custody of the subject child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied, without a hearing, the mother’s application to modify a prior order of the same court (Koenig, J.), dated April 21, 2001, awarding custody of the subject child (see Matter of Carpenter v Whitaker, 5 AD3d 681 [2004]; Engeldrum v Engeldrum, 306 AD2d 242 [2003]; Matter of Johnson v Semple, 273 AD2d 311 [2000]; cf. Matter of Dow v Dow, 306 AD2d 529 [2003]; Granata v Granata, 289 AD2d 527 [2001]). The mother contends that her relocation to North Carolina was a change of circumstances warranting a hearing. However, while the present custody order provides that the parties shall have joint custody of the child, it states that the child shall reside with the father. Custody should be established on a long-term basis whenever possible (see Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768 [1975]) and the mother presented no evidence that the child’s best interests would be served by relocating with him to North Carolina (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727 [1996]). Adams, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Nassau County (Marks, J.), dated September 1, 2004, which, without a hearing, denied her application to modify a prior order of the same court (Koenig, J.), dated April 21, 2001, awarding custody of the subject child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied, without a hearing, the mother’s application to modify a prior order of the same court (Koenig, J.), dated April 21, 2001, awarding custody of the subject child (see Matter of Carpenter v Whitaker, 5 AD3d 681 [2004]; Engeldrum v Engeldrum, 306 AD2d 242 [2003]; Matter of Johnson v Semple, 273 AD2d 311 [2000]; cf. Matter of Dow v Dow, 306 AD2d 529 [2003]; Granata v Granata, 289 AD2d 527 [2001]). The mother contends that her relocation to North Carolina was a change of circumstances warranting a hearing. However, while the present custody order provides that the parties shall have joint custody of the child, it states that the child shall reside with the father. Custody should be established on a long-term basis whenever possible (see Obey v Degling, 37 NY2d 768 [1975]) and the mother presented no evidence that the child’s best interests would be served by relocating with him to North Carolina (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727 [1996]). Adams, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 555, 805 N.Y.S.2d 90, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belbol-v-stevenson-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack