Curcio v. Curcio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curcio v. Curcio

177 A.D.2d 1051, 578 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15856

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 177 A.D.2d 1051 (Curcio v. Curcio) 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

Curcio v. Curcio, 177 A.D.2d 1051, 578 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15856 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Family Court erred in permitting the respondent to relocate to Tennessee with the four infant issue of the marriage. The record is bare of any evidence of compelling circumstances, or pressing concerns for the welfare of the children or custodial parent, that would warrant relocation (see, Stec v Levindofske, 153 AD2d 310, 312; Barie v Faulkner, 115 AD2d 1003, 1004; see also, Matter of Kelly v Kelly, 132 AD2d 977). The record establishes that it would be in the children’s best interest to be nurtured by both parents (see generally, Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 175). We additionally note that both parents hold great love and affection for their children and neither is an unfit parent.

Given those circumstances, it is in the children’s best interest that custody of the infant issue of the marriage be continued with respondent, upon the condition that he relocates from Tennessee to Monroe County within 90 days of this order and, in the event that respondent fails to do so, custody of the children is awarded to petitioner (see, Stec v Levindofske, supra, at 313). Physical custody of the three infant issue of the marriage who presently reside with petitioner shall be transferred to respondent upon his relocation to Monroe County. (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Sciolino, J.—Custody.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Family Court erred in permitting the respondent to relocate to Tennessee with the four infant issue of the marriage. The record is bare of any evidence of compelling circumstances, or pressing concerns for the welfare of the children or custodial parent, that would warrant relocation (see, Stec v Levindofske, 153 AD2d 310, 312; Barie v Faulkner, 115 AD2d 1003, 1004; see also, Matter of Kelly v Kelly, 132 AD2d 977). The record establishes that it would be in the children’s best interest to be nurtured by both parents (see generally, Weiss v Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 175). We additionally note that both parents hold great love and affection for their children and neither is an unfit parent.

Given those circumstances, it is in the children’s best interest that custody of the infant issue of the marriage be continued with respondent, upon the condition that he relocates from Tennessee to Monroe County within 90 days of this order and, in the event that respondent fails to do so, custody of the children is awarded to petitioner (see, Stec v Levindofske, supra, at 313). Physical custody of the three infant issue of the marriage who presently reside with petitioner shall be transferred to respondent upon his relocation to Monroe County. (Appeal from Order of Monroe County Family Court, Sciolino, J.—Custody.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 A.D.2d 1051, 578 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15856, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curcio-v-curcio-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack