Carncross v. O'Connell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carncross v. O'Connell

302 A.D.2d 931, 753 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 907

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 931 (Carncross v. O'Connell) 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

Carncross v. O'Connell, 302 A.D.2d 931, 753 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Erie County (Carter, J.), entered July 26, 2002, which dismissed the petition seeking to relocate with the parties’ child.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is granted.

Memorandum: We agree with petitioner mother that Family [932]*932Court erred in dismissing her petition seeking to relocate with the parties’ minor child to the People’s Republic of China for a period of two school years, with arrangements to be made for extended periods of visitation with respondent father during Christmas vacations and the summer recess. “[E]ach relocation request must be considered on its own merits with due consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances and with predominant emphasis being placed on what outcome is most likely to serve the best interests of the child” (Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739). In this case, the record reflects that the parties’ child would have the unique experience of living in a foreign country and attending a renowned international school. We conclude that the relocation, which is for a limited two-year period with extended visitation periods with respondent, would be in the child’s best interests (see generally Matter of Gillard v Gillard, 241 AD2d 966). Present— Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of Family Court, Erie County (Carter, J.), entered July 26, 2002, which dismissed the petition seeking to relocate with the parties’ child.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is granted.

Memorandum: We agree with petitioner mother that Family [932]*932Court erred in dismissing her petition seeking to relocate with the parties’ minor child to the People’s Republic of China for a period of two school years, with arrangements to be made for extended periods of visitation with respondent father during Christmas vacations and the summer recess. “[E]ach relocation request must be considered on its own merits with due consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances and with predominant emphasis being placed on what outcome is most likely to serve the best interests of the child” (Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739). In this case, the record reflects that the parties’ child would have the unique experience of living in a foreign country and attending a renowned international school. We conclude that the relocation, which is for a limited two-year period with extended visitation periods with respondent, would be in the child’s best interests (see generally Matter of Gillard v Gillard, 241 AD2d 966). Present— Pine, J.P., Wisner, Kehoe, Burns and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 931, 753 N.Y.S.2d 916, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carncross-v-oconnell-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack