Jones v. Tarnawa

26 A.D.3d 870, 809 N.Y.S.2d 742
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 3, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 870 (Jones v. Tarnawa) 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
Jones v. Tarnawa, 26 A.D.3d 870, 809 N.Y.S.2d 742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Herkimer County [871]*871(Henry A. LaRaia, J.), entered April 1, 2004 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6. The order dismissed the petition.

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

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking to modify a prior custody order by awarding her primary custody of the parties’ children, thereby permitting the children to relocate with her from Herkimer County to Indiana. Family Court properly determined that petitioner failed to meet her burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed relocation is in the children’s best interests (see generally Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741 [1996]; Sawyer v Sawyer, 242 AD2d 969, 972 [1997]). In considering the factors set forth in Tropea, the court properly determined that the children’s relationship with respondent would be adversely affected by the proposed relocation because of the distance between Herkimer County and Indiana, and that petitioner failed to establish that the children’s lives would “be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the [relocation]” (87 NY2d at 741). Indeed, we note that the sole factor that arguably supports the request of petitioner for the relocation is her desire for a “fresh start” in her new marriage, and “[t]hat factor, standing alone, is . . . insufficient” to warrant the relocation (Sawyer, 242 AD2d at 972). Present—Scudder, J.P., Kehoe, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Villani v. Wendig
2026 NY Slip Op 00690 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026)
Gasdik v. Winiarz
2020 NY Slip Op 06918 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
FORRESTEL, RYAN M. v. FORRESTEL, MARGUERITA
125 A.D.3d 1299 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
GRANT, BETH ANNE v. GRANT, SCOTT C.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Grant v. Grant
101 A.D.3d 1711 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
BARLOW, UCHENNA R. v. SMITH, DONALD C.
94 A.D.3d 1437 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Webb v. Aaron
79 A.D.3d 1761 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Dukes v. McPherson
50 A.D.3d 1529 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 A.D.3d 870, 809 N.Y.S.2d 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-tarnawa-nyappdiv-2006.