From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bostinto v. Bostinto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 22, 1994
207 A.D.2d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

August 22, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is the general policy of this State that a move by the custodial parent to a distant locale will not be permitted when it would effectively deprive the noncustodial parent of regular access to a child of the marriage (see, Amato v. Amato, 202 A.D.2d 458; see also, Leslie v. Leslie, 180 A.D.2d 620, 621; Ladizhensky v. Ladizhensky, 184 A.D.2d 756). This policy is based upon the principle that visitation is a joint right of both the noncustodial parent and the child (see, Weiss v. Weiss, 52 N.Y.2d 170), and upon the premise that the best interests of the child would be furthered by the child being nurtured and guided by both of the natural parents (see, Rybicki v. Rybicki, 176 A.D.2d 867). However, the general rule against relocation is not absolute and it will be permitted upon a showing of exceptional circumstances.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the wife has demonstrated exceptional circumstances and that the best interests of the infant child of the marriage warrants her relocation to New Mexico (see, Lavane v. Lavane, 201 A.D.2d 623; Hemphill v Hemphill, 169 A.D.2d 29). Ritter, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bostinto v. Bostinto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 22, 1994
207 A.D.2d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Bostinto v. Bostinto

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH BOSTINTO, Appellant, v. MELORA BOSTINTO, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Aug 22, 1994

Citations

207 A.D.2d 471 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
616 N.Y.S.2d 58

Citing Cases

Young v. Young

BALLETTA, J.P. It has been observed by our Court that "[t]he natural right of visitation jointly enjoyed by…

MATTER OF JF v. LF

However, even though there is a difference in nomenclature, it is submitted that the principles in these…