Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012

Carmen G. v. Rogelio D.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided November 29, 2012

100 A.D.3d 568; 955 N.Y.S.2d 14

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Nancy A. v. Juan A. B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Matter of Nancy A. v. Juan A. B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Matter of Khalia R.R. v. Evans D. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Khalia R.R. v. Evans D. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Alberto D. v. Erica E.A. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2022)
Matter of Jamee Bennett G. v. John Nicolaas B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Matter of Jamee Bennett G. v. John Nicolaas B. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Mathiew v. Michels (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Matter of Raymond S.H. v. Nefertiti S.M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Matter of Nadine T. v. Lastenia T. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Matter of Christopher E.C. v. Ivana K.S. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Karen Michelle F. v. Wilfredo C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Karen Michelle F. v. Wilfredo C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Order, Family Court, New York County (Diane Costanzo, Ref.), entered on or about July 7, 2011, which granted petitioner mother’s petition to relocate from Manhattan to Virginia with the parties’ minor child, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record, and there is no reason to disturb the court’s findings (see Matter of Koegler v Woodard, 96 AD3d 454, 455 [1st Dept 2012]). Indeed, the court considered all of the relevant factors and properly concluded that the proposed relocation would serve the subject child’s best interests (see Matter of Tropea v Tropea, 87 NY2d 727, 741 [1996]). Although the child has a loving relationship with both parties, petitioner has been the child’s primary caregiver and has been responsible for his day-to-day routine. Further, petitioner showed that a move to Virginia would improve the child’s quality of life. In addition, both petitioner and her current husband are committed to fostering a relationship between the child and respondent father (see Sonbuchner v Sonbuchner, 96 AD3d 566, 567 [1st Dept 2012]). *569Although petitioner’s relocation inevitably will have an impact upon respondent’s ability to spend time with the child, the liberal visitation schedule, including extended visits during the summer and school vacations, will allow for the continuation of a meaningful relationship between respondent and the child (see Matter of Jennings v Yillah-Chow, 84 AD3d 1376, 1377 [2d Dept 2011]; see also Matter of Aruty v Mormando, 70 AD3d 683 [2d Dept 2010]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Richter, AbdusSalaam and Feinman, JJ.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.