Kane v. Kane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kane v. Kane

73 A.D.3d 1177, 900 N.Y.S.2d 896

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

DecidedMay 25, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.3d 1177 (Kane v. Kane) 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

Kane v. Kane, 73 A.D.3d 1177, 900 N.Y.S.2d 896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), dated December 24, 2008, as, after a hearing, granted the mother’s petition for permission to relocate to Texas with the parties’ child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Family Court’s determination permitting the mother to relocate with the child to Texas was in the best interests of the child and was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739 [1996]; Matter of Fegadel v Anderson, 40 AD3d 1091, 1093 [2007]). The mother demonstrated that the move would enhance the child’s [1178]*1178life economically, emotionally, and educationally (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d at 740-741). Further, the attorney for the child supported the Family Court’s determination (see Matter of Fegadel v Anderson, 40 AD3d at 1093; Matter of Kozlowski v Mangialino, 36 AD3d 916, 917 [2007]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller and Austin, JJ., concur.

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

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lynaugh, J.), dated December 24, 2008, as, after a hearing, granted the mother’s petition for permission to relocate to Texas with the parties’ child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Family Court’s determination permitting the mother to relocate with the child to Texas was in the best interests of the child and was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739 [1996]; Matter of Fegadel v Anderson, 40 AD3d 1091, 1093 [2007]). The mother demonstrated that the move would enhance the child’s [1178]*1178life economically, emotionally, and educationally (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d at 740-741). Further, the attorney for the child supported the Family Court’s determination (see Matter of Fegadel v Anderson, 40 AD3d at 1093; Matter of Kozlowski v Mangialino, 36 AD3d 916, 917 [2007]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.P., Florio, Miller and Austin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 1177, 900 N.Y.S.2d 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kane-v-kane-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack