Matter of Pepe v. Pepe

124 A.D.3d 898, 998 N.Y.S.2d 897
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 28, 2015
Docket2013-10796
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 124 A.D.3d 898 (Matter of Pepe v. Pepe) 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
Matter of Pepe v. Pepe, 124 A.D.3d 898, 998 N.Y.S.2d 897 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Appeals from (1) an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (William E Warren, J.), entered October 24, 2013, and (2) an order of that court entered October 25, 2013. The order entered October 24, 2013, granted the mother’s application for an award of an attorney’s fee. The order entered October 25, 2013, in effect, granted the mother’s petition to modify the parties’ judgment of divorce so as to, inter alia, permit her to relocate to Florida with the subject child.

Ordered that the appeal from the order entered October 24, 2013, is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the order entered October 25, 2013, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the order entered October 24, 2013, must be dismissed as abandoned, as the father’s brief does not seek reversal or modification of any portion of that order (see Roth v Roth, 116 AD3d 833 [2014]).

The Family Court, upon weighing the appropriate factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v Tropea (87 NY2d 727 [1996]), properly determined that the mother’s proposed relocation to Florida with the child was in the child’s best interests. The *899 proposed relocation will provide financial security to the mother and the child, and the presence of the maternal grandparents in Florida will provide extended family support. In addition, since, at the time of the order, the child was not in school, there is no reason for concern that the proposed relocation will cause any significant disruption to his life.

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Leventhal, J.E, Hall, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Tahleek G. (Shakara C.)
184 N.Y.S.3d 394 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Matter of Nickel v. Nickel
2019 NY Slip Op 3973 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Kimbrough v. Murphy
2017 NY Slip Op 8522 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Nagubandi v. Polentz
131 A.D.3d 639 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Matter of D'Amico v. Corrado
129 A.D.3d 718 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 A.D.3d 898, 998 N.Y.S.2d 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-pepe-v-pepe-nyappdiv-2015.