Ramirez-Cohen v. Church

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ramirez-Cohen v. Church

284 A.D.2d 472, 726 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6297

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

DecidedJune 18, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 472 (Ramirez-Cohen v. Church) 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

Ramirez-Cohen v. Church, 284 A.D.2d 472, 726 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6297 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), entered February 18, 2000, which denied her petition, inter alia, in effect, for primary residential custody of the parties’ child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant contends, inter alia, that the Family Court erred in denying her petition, among other things, for primary residential custody of the parties’ child based upon the respondent father’s relocation to New Jersey. We disagree. In Matter of Tropea v Tropea (87 NY2d 727), the Court of Appeals held that “each relocation request must be considered on its own merits with due consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances and with predominant emphasis being placed on what outcome is most likely to serve the best interests of the child” (Matter of Tropea v Tropea, supra, at 739). The court set forth the following list of nonexclusive factors which it considered relevant to the ultimate determination (see, Matter of Tropea v Tropea, supra, at 740-741): “[E]ach parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the child and the custodial and noncustodial parents, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child’s future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the custodial parent’s and the child’s life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements.”

After weighing the appropriate factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v Tropea (supra), the Family Court properly found that it was in the child’s best interests to deny the appellant’s petition, inter alia, to award her primary residential custody of the parties’ child.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Rockland County (Warren, J.), entered February 18, 2000, which denied her petition, inter alia, in effect, for primary residential custody of the parties’ child.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The appellant contends, inter alia, that the Family Court erred in denying her petition, among other things, for primary residential custody of the parties’ child based upon the respondent father’s relocation to New Jersey. We disagree. In Matter of Tropea v Tropea (87 NY2d 727), the Court of Appeals held that “each relocation request must be considered on its own merits with due consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances and with predominant emphasis being placed on what outcome is most likely to serve the best interests of the child” (Matter of Tropea v Tropea, supra, at 739). The court set forth the following list of nonexclusive factors which it considered relevant to the ultimate determination (see, Matter of Tropea v Tropea, supra, at 740-741): “[E]ach parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the move, the quality of the relationships between the child and the custodial and noncustodial parents, the impact of the move on the quantity and quality of the child’s future contact with the noncustodial parent, the degree to which the custodial parent’s and the child’s life may be enhanced economically, emotionally and educationally by the move, and the feasibility of preserving the relationship between the noncustodial parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements.”

After weighing the appropriate factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v Tropea (supra), the Family Court properly found that it was in the child’s best interests to deny the appellant’s petition, inter alia, to award her primary residential custody of the parties’ child.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 472, 726 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramirez-cohen-v-church-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack