Opinion
2014-04-17
In re KAREN MICHELLE F., Petitioner–Respondent, v. WILFREDO C., Respondent–Appellant.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant. Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Syosset (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for respondent.
Leslie S. Lowenstein, Woodmere, for appellant. Law Offices of Randall S. Carmel, Syosset (Randall S. Carmel of counsel), for respondent.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., SWEENY, ANDRIAS, GISCHE, CLARK, JJ.
Order, Family Court, Bronx County (James E. d'Auguste, J.), entered on or about November 27, 2012, which, inter alia, granted petitioner mother's petition to relocate from Bronx County to Florida with the parties' 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 generally Matter of Alaire K.G. v. Anthony P.G., 86 A.D.3d 216, 220, 925 N.Y.S.2d 417 [1st Dept.2011] ). The court considered all of the relevant factors and properly concluded that the proposed relocation would serve the child's best interests ( see Matter of Tropea v. Tropea, 87 N.Y.2d 727, 740–741, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d 145 [1996] ). Although the then four-year-old 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 and his financial support for the past 2 1/2 years. Petitioner also showed that a move to Florida would improve the child's quality of life ( see Matter of Kevin McK. v. Elizabeth A.E., 111 A.D.3d 124, 131, 972 N.Y.S.2d 25 [1st Dept.2013];Matter of Melissa Marie G. v. John Christopher W., 73 A.D.3d 658, 901 N.Y.S.2d 275 [1st Dept.2010].
Moreover, both petitioner and her current husband are committed to fostering a relationship between the child and respondent father ( see Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner, 96 A.D.3d 566, 567, 947 N.Y.S.2d 80 [1st Dept.2012] ). Although petitioner's relocation will have an impact upon respondent's ability to spend time with his child, the liberal visitation schedule set by the court will allow for respondent and the child to continue to have a meaningful relationship ( see Matter of Carmen G. v. Rogelio D., 100 A.D.3d 568, 955 N.Y.S.2d 14 [1st Dept.2012] ).
Respondent's contention that the court failed to adequately take into consideration the ability of the parties to equally bear the additional travel expenses that would be incurred as the result of the child's relocation to Florida is unpersuasive. The record demonstrates that respondent was not forthcoming to the court about his finances and neither petitioner nor her husband testified that they were unable afford the additional travel expenses.
We have considered respondent's remaining arguments, including that he was deprived of a fair hearing, and find them unavailing.