Jenifer W. v. Jonathan L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jenifer W. v. Jonathan L.

55 A.D.3d 340, 866 N.Y.S.2d 98

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

DecidedOctober 7, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.3d 340 (Jenifer W. v. Jonathan L.) 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

Jenifer W. v. Jonathan L., 55 A.D.3d 340, 866 N.Y.S.2d 98 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Ruth Jane Zuckerman, J.H.O.), entered on or about September 1, 2006, as supplemented by order, same court and J.H.O., entered on or about February 27, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from, awarded primary physical custody to petitioner mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“[I]n reviewing relocation and other custody issues, deference is to be accorded to the determination rendered by the fact-finder, unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Yolanda R. v Eugene I. G., 38 AD3d 288, 289 [2007]). This record reveals that with respect to the custody issues, the court properly considered the children’s best interests (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739-741 [1996]). A preponderance of the evidence supports the court’s award of physical custody to the mother, who had established a stable home for the children in New Jersey. The father’s concerns were addressed by the court’s disposition, which, among other things, awarded him legal custody and precluded the mother from moving the children’s primary residence more than 15 miles farther from his residence.

[341]*341We have considered the father’s remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.E, Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Ruth Jane Zuckerman, J.H.O.), entered on or about September 1, 2006, as supplemented by order, same court and J.H.O., entered on or about February 27, 2007, which, to the extent appealed from, awarded primary physical custody to petitioner mother, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“[I]n reviewing relocation and other custody issues, deference is to be accorded to the determination rendered by the fact-finder, unless it lacks a sound and substantial basis in the record” (Yolanda R. v Eugene I. G., 38 AD3d 288, 289 [2007]). This record reveals that with respect to the custody issues, the court properly considered the children’s best interests (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739-741 [1996]). A preponderance of the evidence supports the court’s award of physical custody to the mother, who had established a stable home for the children in New Jersey. The father’s concerns were addressed by the court’s disposition, which, among other things, awarded him legal custody and precluded the mother from moving the children’s primary residence more than 15 miles farther from his residence.

[341]*341We have considered the father’s remaining contentions and find them without merit. Concur—Tom, J.E, Friedman, Buckley, Acosta and Freedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.3d 340, 866 N.Y.S.2d 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jenifer-w-v-jonathan-l-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack