Tschaepe v. Vaccaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tschaepe v. Vaccaro

195 A.D.2d 1069, 602 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7893

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

DecidedJuly 16, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 195 A.D.2d 1069 (Tschaepe v. Vaccaro) 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

Tschaepe v. Vaccaro, 195 A.D.2d 1069, 602 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7893 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: For the reasons stated in the decision of Supreme Court (Affronti, J.), we agree that plaintiff was justified in changing the residence of the parties’ children to the Commonwealth of Virginia and that defendant’s motion seeking custody should be denied. Addressing the issues raised by plaintiff on her cross appeal, we conclude that the court properly required plaintiff to defray the costs incurred by defendant in visiting the children (see, Hemphill v Hemphill, 169 AD2d 29, 31, appeal dismissed 78 NY2d 1070) and properly amended the order of child support to provide that defendant would not be responsible for child support during certain periods of visitation. Finally, the court properly retained jurisdiction over the parties and the children even though plaintiff and the children now reside in Virginia (see, Matter of Setlur v Setlur, 135 AD2d 873, 874). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J.—Relocation.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Boomer, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: For the reasons stated in the decision of Supreme Court (Affronti, J.), we agree that plaintiff was justified in changing the residence of the parties’ children to the Commonwealth of Virginia and that defendant’s motion seeking custody should be denied. Addressing the issues raised by plaintiff on her cross appeal, we conclude that the court properly required plaintiff to defray the costs incurred by defendant in visiting the children (see, Hemphill v Hemphill, 169 AD2d 29, 31, appeal dismissed 78 NY2d 1070) and properly amended the order of child support to provide that defendant would not be responsible for child support during certain periods of visitation. Finally, the court properly retained jurisdiction over the parties and the children even though plaintiff and the children now reside in Virginia (see, Matter of Setlur v Setlur, 135 AD2d 873, 874). (Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J.—Relocation.) Present—Pine, J. P., Fallon, Boomer, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 A.D.2d 1069, 602 N.Y.S.2d 577, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7893, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tschaepe-v-vaccaro-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack