Iris R. v. Jose R.

74 A.D.3d 457, 902 N.Y.S.2d 519
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 3, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 74 A.D.3d 457 (Iris R. v. Jose R.) 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
Iris R. v. Jose R., 74 A.D.3d 457, 902 N.Y.S.2d 519 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Sarah E Cooper, Ref.), entered on or about November 8, 2007, which, after a hearing and to the extent appealed from, granted the paternal grandmother’s petition for modification of a 2005 order that had given her physical custody of the child in a joint custody arrangement with respondent parents, and denied respondent mother’s cross petition for sole custody, awarding sole custody to petitioner with permission to relocate with the child to Florida, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The 2005 custody arrangement was granted on consent, and respondent mother failed to demonstrate a sufficient change in circumstances since the time of that stipulation to support her latest cross petition (see Matter of Sergei P. v Sofia M., 44 AD3d 490 [2007]). Additionally, extraordinary circumstances triggered this latest inquiry as to the best interests of the child with regard to changing petitioner’s physical custody to sole custody (see Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543, 544 [1976]). The evidence established persistent neglect by both parents, and revealed a prolonged separation between them and the child, who has been residing with petitioner for over three years (Domestic Relations Law § 72 [2] [b]; see Matter of Carton v Grimm, 51 AD3d 1111, 1112 n [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 716 [2008]).

Based upon the totality of the circumstances, including evidence relating to the parents’ past performance and the need to maintain stability for this young child (now nine years old), we find no basis for disturbing the court’s best-interests award of sole custody to petitioner, with permission for the child to remain with her in Florida (see Matter of Elizabeth A., 13 AD3d 615 [2004]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Nardelli, Moskowitz, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Cross v. Cross
2025 NY Slip Op 00760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
THOMAS, MADELYN v. SMALL, FELICIA
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Thomas v. Small
142 A.D.3d 1345 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Matter of Daniel N. v. Joy N.
139 A.D.3d 469 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Klauer v. Abeliovich
120 A.D.3d 1114 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Shemeek D. v. Teresa B.
89 A.D.3d 608 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Dianne M. v. Princess R.F.
82 A.D.3d 481 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 A.D.3d 457, 902 N.Y.S.2d 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iris-r-v-jose-r-nyappdiv-2010.