Matter of Diana M. v. Nityanan T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Matter of Diana M. v. Nityanan T.

123 A.D.3d 632, 999 N.Y.S.2d 415

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 2014·No. 13851·Published

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about December 5, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, denied petitioner mother’s application to relocate with the parties’ child to Florida, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court properly found, after consideration of the evidence adduced at trial, that the proposed relocation would not serve the child’s best interests (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741 [1996]; Matter of David J.B. v Monique H., 52 AD3d 414 [1st Dept 2008]). While petitioner established that a slight economic advantage would be realized by the move to Florida, the advantage did not outweigh the disruption in the child’s bond with respondent father so as to warrant relocation (compare Matter of Harrsch v Jesser, 74 AD3d 811 [2d Dept 2010]; Matter of Kevin McK. v Elizabeth *633 A.E., 111 AD3d 124 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County (Jane Pearl, J.), entered on or about December 5, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, denied petitioner mother’s application to relocate with the parties’ child to Florida, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Family Court properly found, after consideration of the evidence adduced at trial, that the proposed relocation would not serve the child’s best interests (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741 [1996]; Matter of David J.B. v Monique H., 52 AD3d 414 [1st Dept 2008]). While petitioner established that a slight economic advantage would be realized by the move to Florida, the advantage did not outweigh the disruption in the child’s bond with respondent father so as to warrant relocation (compare Matter of Harrsch v Jesser, 74 AD3d 811 [2d Dept 2010]; Matter of Kevin McK. v Elizabeth *633 A.E., 111 AD3d 124 [1st Dept 2013]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, DeGrasse and Gische, JJ.

Matter of Diana M. v. Nityanan T., 123 A.D.3d 632, 999 N.Y.S.2d 415 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

123 A.D.3d 632 (Matter of Diana M. v. Nityanan T.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related