Emmi v. Fleszar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Emmi v. Fleszar

256 A.D.2d 1199, 683 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14359

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1199 (Emmi v. Fleszar) 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

Emmi v. Fleszar, 256 A.D.2d 1199, 683 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14359 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Family Court erred in allowing petitioner to relocate from Syracuse to Philadelphia with the parties’ minor child. Petitioner’s sole reason to relocate was to place distance between petitioner and respondent to alleviate the conflict between them. There was no evidence that the relocation was in the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741; Matter of Mahoney v Doring, 256 AD2d 1112 [decided herewith]). A custodial parent’s desire for a “fresh start”, standing alone, is insufficient to justify relocation (see, Sawyer v Sawyer, 242 AD2d 969). Similarly, a custodial parent’s desire to relocate based solely on irreconcilable differences with the ex-spouse is also insufficient to justify relocation. Thus, we modify the order by denying the petition. (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Rossi, J. — Custody.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Fallon, 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 allowing petitioner to relocate from Syracuse to Philadelphia with the parties’ minor child. Petitioner’s sole reason to relocate was to place distance between petitioner and respondent to alleviate the conflict between them. There was no evidence that the relocation was in the best interests of the child (see, Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741; Matter of Mahoney v Doring, 256 AD2d 1112 [decided herewith]). A custodial parent’s desire for a “fresh start”, standing alone, is insufficient to justify relocation (see, Sawyer v Sawyer, 242 AD2d 969). Similarly, a custodial parent’s desire to relocate based solely on irreconcilable differences with the ex-spouse is also insufficient to justify relocation. Thus, we modify the order by denying the petition. (Appeal from Order of Onondaga County Family Court, Rossi, J. — Custody.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Pigott, Jr., Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1199, 683 N.Y.S.2d 452, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14359, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emmi-v-fleszar-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack