Yelton v. Froelich

82 A.D.3d 1679, 919 N.Y.2d 680
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 25, 2011
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 1679 (Yelton v. Froelich) 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
Yelton v. Froelich, 82 A.D.3d 1679, 919 N.Y.2d 680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, modified the parties’ existing custody arrangement, to which the parties had stipulated, by awarding primary physical custody of the parties’ children to petitioner father. We reject the mother’s contention that the father failed to make the requisite showing of a change in circumstances to warrant alteration of the existing arrangement, pursuant to which she had primary physical custody. “[A]n existing [custody] arrangement that is based upon a stipulation of the parties is entitled to less weight than a disposition after a plenary trial . . . , and here there was a sufficient change in circumstances to warrant a modification of the existing custody arrangement” (Matter of Alexandra H. v Raymond B.H., 37 AD3d 1125, 1126 [2007] [internal quotation marks omitted]). The record establishes that, after the parties entered into the stipulation, the mother changed jobs and moved several times, requiring the children to change school districts. In addition, the mother left the children for three months to explore employment opportunities in Florida and to spend time with her boyfriend there, and she transferred her professional license as a certified nurse assistant to Florida, thus jeopardizing her ability to obtain employment in New York. Those changed circumstances, along with the evidence presented at the hearing on the father’s custody petition that his residence and employment remained consistent since the time of the stipulation and that the children thrived in his care, “constitute the requisite evidentiary showing of a ‘change of circumstances warranting a reexamination of the [1680]*1680existing custody arrangement’ ” (Matter of Amy L.M. v Kevin M.M., 31 AD3d 1224, 1225 [2006]). Present — Centra, J.E, Fahey, Garni, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Related

EASTMAN, STEVEN J. v. EASTMAN, LISA M.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
Eastman v. Eastman
118 A.D.3d 1342 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
82 A.D.3d 1679, 919 N.Y.2d 680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yelton-v-froelich-nyappdiv-2011.