Rotering v. Rotering

6 A.D.3d 718, 775 N.Y.S.2d 182
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 26, 2004·Published·Cited by 7 cases

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

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

6 A.D.3d 718 (Rotering v. Rotering) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matter of Melgar v. Sevilla
127 A.D.3d 1092 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Christy v. Christy
113 A.D.3d 848 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Rubio v. Rubio
71 A.D.3d 862 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Martino v. Ramos
64 A.D.3d 657 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Lisa B. v. Salim G.
2005 NY Slip Op 50561(U) (Suffolk Family Court, 2005)
Fegadel-Anderson v. Anderson
9 A.D.3d 409 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)