Treadwell v. Treadwell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Treadwell v. Treadwell

32 A.D.3d 522, 819 N.Y.S.2d 669

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

DecidedAugust 22, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 A.D.3d 522 (Treadwell v. Treadwell) 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

Treadwell v. Treadwell, 32 A.D.3d 522, 819 N.Y.S.2d 669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, inter alia, to modify a prior order of custody and visitation entered February 9, 1999, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (McElligott, J.H.O.), entered March 15, 2005, which granted the petition, permitted the mother to relocate with the parties’ child to North Carolina, and established a visitation schedule for the father.

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 Family Court properly found that it was in the child’s best interest to permit relocation (see Miller v Pipia, 297 AD2d 362 [2002]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, 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, inter alia, to modify a prior order of custody and visitation entered February 9, 1999, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (McElligott, J.H.O.), entered March 15, 2005, which granted the petition, permitted the mother to relocate with the parties’ child to North Carolina, and established a visitation schedule for the father.

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 Family Court properly found that it was in the child’s best interest to permit relocation (see Miller v Pipia, 297 AD2d 362 [2002]).

The father’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Ritter, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 522, 819 N.Y.S.2d 669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/treadwell-v-treadwell-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack