Wheaton v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wheaton v. Anderson

224 A.D.2d 929, 638 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1564

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 929 (Wheaton v. Anderson) 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

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).

Pincite

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

—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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 929, 638 N.Y.S.2d 379, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheaton-v-anderson-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack