Otero v. Nieves

77 A.D.3d 756, 908 N.Y.S.2d 603
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 12, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 77 A.D.3d 756 (Otero v. Nieves) 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
Otero v. Nieves, 77 A.D.3d 756, 908 N.Y.S.2d 603 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from so much of an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Graham, J.), dated September 8, 2009, as, after a hearing, denied his petition seeking custody of the parties’ child and granted the mother’s cross petition for custody of the child and for permission to relocate to Pennsylvania.

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

An award of custody is based on a determination of the best interests of the child, which includes those factors considered in assessing a petition for relocation (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739 [1996]; Matter of Tabernuro v Jones, 23 AD3d 667 [2005]; Matter of Brackman v Debrest, 276 AD2d 483 [2000]; Matter of Spencer v Small, 263 AD2d 783, 785 [1999]). Because custody determinations depend to a great extent upon an assessment of the character and credibility of the parties and witnesses, deference is accorded to the trial court’s findings, and [757]*757such findings will not be disturbed unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see Matter of Garcia v Becerra, 68 AD3d 864 [2009]; Matter of Bonilla v Amaya, 58 AD3d 728 [2009]).

Based on the evidence, including the testimony of the parties and witnesses, the denial of the father’s petition for custody and the granting of the mother’s cross petition for custody and for permission to relocate with the child to Pennsylvania were based on sound and substantial evidence in the record and should not be disturbed on appeal (see Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167, 171 [1982]; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89, 93 [1982]; Matter of Tyska v Jensen, 74 AD3d 831 [2010]; Matter of Tabernuro v Jones, 23 AD3d 667 [2005]; Matter of Brackman v Debrest, 276 AD2d 483 [2000]; Matter of Spencer v Small, 263 AD2d 783, 785 [1999]). Prudenti, P.J., Angiolillo, Belen and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Agulnick v. Agulnick
2020 NY Slip Op 07333 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
Matter of Dolan v. Masterton
121 A.D.3d 979 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Matter of Chamas v. Carino
119 A.D.3d 564 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Land-Wheatley v. Land-Wheatley
108 A.D.3d 674 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Gooler v. Gooler
107 A.D.3d 712 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Eddington v. McCabe
98 A.D.3d 613 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Julian B. v. Williams
97 A.D.3d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Olmsted v. Boronow
95 A.D.3d 891 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Harry v. Harry
92 A.D.3d 883 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Kreischer v. Perry
83 A.D.3d 841 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Reyes v. Polanco
83 A.D.3d 849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Clarke v. Boertlein
82 A.D.3d 976 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Quinones v. Gonzalez
79 A.D.3d 893 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Skeete v. Hamilton
78 A.D.3d 1187 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Haggerty v. Haggerty
78 A.D.3d 998 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Ramirez v. Velez
78 A.D.3d 1062 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
77 A.D.3d 756, 908 N.Y.S.2d 603, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otero-v-nieves-nyappdiv-2010.