Opinion
May 1, 2001.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered on or about February 4, 2000, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff's motion for permission to relocate to California with the parties' child upon condition that she pay the costs of visitation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Suzanne Kimberly Bracker, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Pro Se, for Defendant-Respondent.
Before: Rosenberger, J.P., Nardelli, Tom, Wallach, Saxe, JJ.
The IAS court properly conditioned plaintiff's relocation upon her bearing the expenses of the new visitation schedule, in view of the parties' respective financial conditions and plaintiff's repeated offers at the hearing to pay the expenses of an even more liberal visitation schedule were relocation allowed (see, Martinez v. Konczewski, 85 A.D.2d 717, affd 57 N.Y.2d 809; Long v. Long, 252 A.D.2d 722). Although defendant has not filed a cross appeal, both sides brief the issue of whether relocation is in the child's best interests, and, were we to consider the issue, we would find that it is.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.