Wheaton v. Anderson

224 A.D.2d 929, 638 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1564
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 2, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Respondent met her burden of demonstrating that exceptional circumstances justify her relocation to Iowa with the parties’ child (see, Matter of Pecorello v Snodgrass, 142 AD2d 920, appeal dismissed 72 NY2d 1039). The record supports Family Court’s determinations that the relocation was prompted by economic necessity rather than economic betterment (see, Matter of Daniels v [930]*930Daniels, 224 AD2d 931 [decided herewith]; Matter of Raybin v Raybin, 205 AD2d 918, 919-920) and that the child’s best interests will be served by continuing custody with respondent (see, Matter of Daniels v Daniels, supra; Ladizhensky v Ladizhensky, 184 AD2d 756, 758). (Appeal from Order of Steuben County Family Court, Bradstreet, J. — Custody.) Present — Green, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Callahan and Doerr, JJ.

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

Wheaton v. Anderson, 224 A.D.2d 929, 638 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

224 A.D.2d 929 (Wheaton v. Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Daniels v. Daniels
224 A.D.2d 931 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)