Smith v. Bonvicino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Bonvicino

50 A.D.3d 806, 854 N.Y.S.2d 659

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

DecidedApril 8, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 806 (Smith v. Bonvicino) 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

Smith v. Bonvicino, 50 A.D.3d 806, 854 N.Y.S.2d 659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[807]*807In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Snellenburg, J.H.O.), dated August 10, 2006, which, after a hearing, granted the mother’s petition for leave to relocate with the subject child to the state of Oklahoma.

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

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the mother’s petition for leave to relocate with the subject child to the state of Oklahoma. When reviewing a custodial parent’s request to relocate, the court’s primary focus must be on the best interests of the child (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739 [1996]; Matter of Friedman v Rome, 46 AD3d 682 [2007]). Here, the mother demonstrated that the proposed move will allow the child to benefit from an enhanced relationship with her half brother and the improved economic opportunities for the mother. While the loss of the father’s-weekend and occasional midweek parenting time is not insignificant, the parenting time provided for by the Family Court allows for the continuation of a meaningful relationship between the father and the child (see Matter of Cooke v Alaimo, 44 AD3d 655 [2007]). Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.

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

[807]*807In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Snellenburg, J.H.O.), dated August 10, 2006, which, after a hearing, granted the mother’s petition for leave to relocate with the subject child to the state of Oklahoma.

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

The Family Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the mother’s petition for leave to relocate with the subject child to the state of Oklahoma. When reviewing a custodial parent’s request to relocate, the court’s primary focus must be on the best interests of the child (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 739 [1996]; Matter of Friedman v Rome, 46 AD3d 682 [2007]). Here, the mother demonstrated that the proposed move will allow the child to benefit from an enhanced relationship with her half brother and the improved economic opportunities for the mother. While the loss of the father’s-weekend and occasional midweek parenting time is not insignificant, the parenting time provided for by the Family Court allows for the continuation of a meaningful relationship between the father and the child (see Matter of Cooke v Alaimo, 44 AD3d 655 [2007]). Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 806, 854 N.Y.S.2d 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-bonvicino-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack