Moore v. Kazacos

89 A.D.3d 1546, 932 N.Y.2d 788
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 18, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 1546 (Moore v. Kazacos) 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
Moore v. Kazacos, 89 A.D.3d 1546, 932 N.Y.2d 788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Memorandum:

In this child custody proceeding, respondent father appeals from an order granting the petition of the mother seeking sole custody of the parties’ infant son. We reject the father’s contention that the Referee erred in failing to consider the factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v Tropea (87 NY2d 727, 740-741 [1996]) before awarding custody to the mother, who moved from Syracuse to North Carolina shortly after she commenced this proceeding. Inasmuch “[a]s this is an initial custody determination, it is not necessary to adhere to a strict application of the relevant factors to be considered in a potential relocation as enunciated in Matter of Tropea v Tropea” (Matter of Lynch v Gillogly, 82 AD3d 1529, 1530 [2011]; see Matter of Baker v Spurgeon, 85 AD3d 1494, 1496 [2011], lv dismissed 17 NY3d 897 [2011]; Matter of Schneider v Lascher, 72 AD3d 1417 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 708 [2010]).

In addition, although the Referee should have made an explicit finding that awarding custody to the mother was in the child’s best interests, the record is “sufficiently complete” for this Court to make its own findings (Matter of Ammann v Ammann, 209 AD2d 1032, 1032-1033 [1994]), and we conclude that the Referee’s custody award is in the child’s best interests. We note that there is no dispute that, as of the hearing date, the father had never seen the child, and the father did not avail himself of opportunities to visit the child during the pendency of the proceeding. Indeed, the father failed to appear at his own house for a scheduled home visit with the Attorney for the Child, [1547]*1547who sought to arrange visits for him with the child. Finally, we reject the father’s contention that the case should be remitted for the Referee to fashion a more specific visitation schedule. If the father is unable to obtain “open and reasonable parenting time ... as the parties may agree” pursuant to the order, he may file a petition seeking to enforce or modify the order. Present — Scudder, EJ., Garni, Lindley, Sconiers and Green, JJ.

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

Related

Matter of Coates v. Hodge
2026 NY Slip Op 00760 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2026)
Matter of Thomas v. Osinski
2025 NY Slip Op 03452 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Matter of Dixon v. Crow
2021 NY Slip Op 01572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Kelley v. Fifield
2018 NY Slip Op 2110 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Matter of Pierce v. Pierce
2017 NY Slip Op 4594 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
BELCHER, JACOB R. v. MORGADO, MONICA A.
147 A.D.3d 1335 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
THOMAS, MADELYN v. SMALL, FELICIA
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Thomas v. Small
142 A.D.3d 1345 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
FORRESTEL, RYAN M. v. FORRESTEL, MARGUERITA
125 A.D.3d 1299 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
QUISTORF, MARK v. LEVESQUE, TONIA M.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Quistorf v. Levesque
117 A.D.3d 1456 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
SAPERSTON, WILLARD v. HOLDAWAY, HEATHER
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Saperston v. Holdaway
93 A.D.3d 1271 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 A.D.3d 1546, 932 N.Y.2d 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-kazacos-nyappdiv-2011.