Rutigliano v. Rutigliano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rutigliano v. Rutigliano

5 A.D.3d 581, 772 N.Y.S.2d 880

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 581 (Rutigliano v. Rutigliano) 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

Rutigliano v. Rutigliano, 5 A.D.3d 581, 772 N.Y.S.2d 880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered January 17, 2002, the plaintiff mother appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Marano, J.), dated December 21, 2002, which, inter alia, denied her cross motion for permission to relocate with the parties’ son to Florida.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

When reviewing a custodial parent’s request to relocate, the court’s primary focus must be the best interests of the child (see Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739 [1996]; Kime v Kime, 302 AD2d 564 [2003]; Miller v Pipia, 297 AD2d 362, 365-366 [2002]). Here, contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the record provides a sound and substantial basis for the Supreme Court’s determination that she should remain in New York and not relocate to Florida with the parties’ son. Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered January 17, 2002, the plaintiff mother appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Marano, J.), dated December 21, 2002, which, inter alia, denied her cross motion for permission to relocate with the parties’ son to Florida.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

When reviewing a custodial parent’s request to relocate, the court’s primary focus must be the best interests of the child (see Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739 [1996]; Kime v Kime, 302 AD2d 564 [2003]; Miller v Pipia, 297 AD2d 362, 365-366 [2002]). Here, contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the record provides a sound and substantial basis for the Supreme Court’s determination that she should remain in New York and not relocate to Florida with the parties’ son. Krausman, J.P., Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 581, 772 N.Y.S.2d 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rutigliano-v-rutigliano-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack