Tortomas v. Andrade

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tortomas v. Andrade

38 A.D.3d 879, 831 N.Y.S.2d 342

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 879 (Tortomas v. Andrade) 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

Tortomas v. Andrade, 38 A.D.3d 879, 831 N.Y.S.2d 342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated May 26, 2004, the defendant father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Bivona, J.), entered September 21, 2005, which, after a hearing, granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for permission to relocate with the parties’ son to Toronto, Canada.

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

After weighing the appropriate factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v Tropea (87 NY2d 727 [1996]), the Supreme Court properly found that it was in the child’s bests interest to permit relocation (see Matter of Vega v Pollack, 21 AD3d 495 [2005]; Miller v Pipia, 297 AD2d 362 [2002]). Rivera, J.E, Ritter, Goldstein and Angiolillo, 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 dated May 26, 2004, the defendant father appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Bivona, J.), entered September 21, 2005, which, after a hearing, granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for permission to relocate with the parties’ son to Toronto, Canada.

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

After weighing the appropriate factors set forth in Matter of Tropea v Tropea (87 NY2d 727 [1996]), the Supreme Court properly found that it was in the child’s bests interest to permit relocation (see Matter of Vega v Pollack, 21 AD3d 495 [2005]; Miller v Pipia, 297 AD2d 362 [2002]). Rivera, J.E, Ritter, Goldstein and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 879, 831 N.Y.S.2d 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tortomas-v-andrade-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack