De Almeida v. Purtell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Almeida v. Purtell

283 A.D.2d 179, 724 N.Y.S.2d 593, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4264

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

DecidedMay 1, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 283 A.D.2d 179 (De Almeida v. Purtell) 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

De Almeida v. Purtell, 283 A.D.2d 179, 724 N.Y.S.2d 593, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about February 4, 2000, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion for permission to relocate to California with the parties’ child upon condition that she pay the costs of visitation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court properly conditioned plaintiffs relocation upon her bearing the expenses of the new visitation schedule, in view of the parties’ respective financial conditions and plaintiff’s repeated offers at the hearing to pay the expenses of an even more liberal visitation schedule were relocation allowed (see, Martinez v Konczewski, 85 AD2d 717, affd 57 NY2d 809; Long v Long, 252 AD2d 722). Although defendant has not filed a cross appeal, both sides brief the issue of whether relocation is in the child’s best interests, and, were we to consider the issue, we would find that it is. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about February 4, 2000, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiffs motion for permission to relocate to California with the parties’ child upon condition that she pay the costs of visitation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court properly conditioned plaintiffs relocation upon her bearing the expenses of the new visitation schedule, in view of the parties’ respective financial conditions and plaintiff’s repeated offers at the hearing to pay the expenses of an even more liberal visitation schedule were relocation allowed (see, Martinez v Konczewski, 85 AD2d 717, affd 57 NY2d 809; Long v Long, 252 AD2d 722). Although defendant has not filed a cross appeal, both sides brief the issue of whether relocation is in the child’s best interests, and, were we to consider the issue, we would find that it is. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 179, 724 N.Y.S.2d 593, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4264, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-almeida-v-purtell-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack