Rotering v. Rotering

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rotering v. Rotering

6 A.D.3d 718, 775 N.Y.S.2d 182

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

DecidedApril 26, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 6 A.D.3d 718 (Rotering v. Rotering) 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

Rotering v. Rotering, 6 A.D.3d 718, 775 N.Y.S.2d 182 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), entered September 8, 2003, which granted the mother’s motion, made at the close of the father’s evidence during the fact-finding hearing, to dismiss his petition to relocate to Fargo, North Dakota, with their children.

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

When reviewing a custodial parent’s request to relocate, the Family Court’s primary focus must be the best interests of the children (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 738-739 [1996]; Kime v Kime, 302 AD2d 564 [2003]). Here, contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court properly dismissed his petition to relocate to Fargo, North Dakota, with the parties’ children, for failure to establish, prima facie, that such relocation was in the best interests of the children. Smith, J.P., Krausman, Crane and Mastro, 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 father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), entered September 8, 2003, which granted the mother’s motion, made at the close of the father’s evidence during the fact-finding hearing, to dismiss his petition to relocate to Fargo, North Dakota, with their children.

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

When reviewing a custodial parent’s request to relocate, the Family Court’s primary focus must be the best interests of the children (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 738-739 [1996]; Kime v Kime, 302 AD2d 564 [2003]). Here, contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court properly dismissed his petition to relocate to Fargo, North Dakota, with the parties’ children, for failure to establish, prima facie, that such relocation was in the best interests of the children. Smith, J.P., Krausman, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 718, 775 N.Y.S.2d 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rotering-v-rotering-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack