Cooper-Jones v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cooper-Jones v. Williams

162 A.D.2d 1001, 557 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9763

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

DecidedJune 22, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 A.D.2d 1001 (Cooper-Jones v. Williams) 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

Cooper-Jones v. Williams, 162 A.D.2d 1001, 557 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s application to relocate with the children to the New York City metropolitan area because it would not be in the best interests of the children to do so. When the parties were divorced in 1985, they agreed that the children would reside with petitioner and that both parties would reside "in Monroe County or at no greater distance between residences than 30 miles.” On this record there is no circumstance or concern pertaining to the children which warrants relocation (see, Stec v Levindofske, 153 AD2d 310). The desire of a custodial parent and his or her new spouse to reside in a particular area does not, by itself, amount to an exceptional circumstance or pressing concern justifying relocation of the children and the consequential interference with the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights (see, Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 176-177; Richardson v Howard, 135 AD2d 1140; Matter of Kelly v Kelly, 132 AD2d 977). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Strobridge, J.—custody.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s application to relocate with the children to the New York City metropolitan area because it would not be in the best interests of the children to do so. When the parties were divorced in 1985, they agreed that the children would reside with petitioner and that both parties would reside "in Monroe County or at no greater distance between residences than 30 miles.” On this record there is no circumstance or concern pertaining to the children which warrants relocation (see, Stec v Levindofske, 153 AD2d 310). The desire of a custodial parent and his or her new spouse to reside in a particular area does not, by itself, amount to an exceptional circumstance or pressing concern justifying relocation of the children and the consequential interference with the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights (see, Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 176-177; Richardson v Howard, 135 AD2d 1140; Matter of Kelly v Kelly, 132 AD2d 977). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Strobridge, J.—custody.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Green, Davis and Lowery, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 1001, 557 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooper-jones-v-williams-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack