Dukes v. McPherson

50 A.D.3d 1529, 857 N.Y.S.2d 390
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 25, 2008
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 1529 (Dukes v. McPherson) 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
Dukes v. McPherson, 50 A.D.3d 1529, 857 N.Y.S.2d 390 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Elma A. Bellini, A.J.), entered September 18, 2006 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order, inter alia, denied the petition seeking, inter alia, permission for the parties’ son to relocate with petitioner to another state.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner mother appeals from an order denying her petition seeking, inter alia, permission for the parties’ son to relocate with her to Maryland. A party seeking relocation has the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed relocation is in the child’s best interests (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741 [1996]; Matter of Jones v Tarnawa, 26 AD3d 870, 871 [2006], lv [1530]*1530denied 6 NY3d 714 [2006]). While the relocation of a child outside of the geographic area where the noncustodial parent resides is not presumptively against the child’s best interests, “the impact of the move on the relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent will remain a central concern” (Tropea, 87 NY2d at 739). Here, in denying that part of the mother’s petition with respect to relocating, Supreme Court properly considered the factors set forth in Tropea, including “each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the child and the custodial and noncustodial parents, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child’s future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the custodial parent’s and child’s life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements” (id. at 740-741). Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Fahey, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Related

HOLTZ, SCOTT v. WEAVER, KATHRYN
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Holtz v. Weaver
94 A.D.3d 1557 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Rauch v. Keller
77 A.D.3d 1409 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Davis v. Davis
66 A.D.3d 1447 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Impastato v. Impastato
62 A.D.3d 752 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 A.D.3d 1529, 857 N.Y.S.2d 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dukes-v-mcpherson-nyappdiv-2008.